The Charlotte News

Friday, December 8, 1939


Site Ed Note: The two cases to which "By Facts Only" refers are: NLRB v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock, 308 US 241, and U.S. v. Borden Co., 308 US 188. In the latter case, at page 200, the Court stated:

"The Sherman Act is a broad enactment prohibiting unreasonable restraints upon interstate commerce, and monopolization or attempts to monopolize, with penal sanctions. The Agricultural Act is a limited statute with specific reference to particular transactions which may be regulated by official action in a prescribed manner. The Agricultural Act declares it to be the policy of Congress 'through the exercise of the powers conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture under this chapter, to establish and maintain such orderly marketing conditions for agricultural commodities in interstate commerce as will establish prices to farmers at a level that will give agricultural commodities a purchasing power with respect to articles that farmers buy, equivalent to the purchasing power of agricultural commodities in the base period' described. To carry out that policy a particular plan is set forth. Farmers and others are not permitted to resort to their own devices and to make any agreements or arrangements they desire, regardless of the restraints which may be inflicted upon commerce. The statutory program to be followed under the Agricultural Act requires the participation of the Secretary of Agriculture who is to hold hearings and make findings. The obvious intention is to provide for what may be found to be reasonable arrangements in particular instances and in the light of the circumstances disclosed. The methods which the Agricultural Act permits to attain that result are twofold, marketing agreements and orders. To give validity to marketing agreements the Secretary must be an actual party to the agreements. (Section 8b.) The orders are also to be made by the Secretary for the purpose of regulating the handling of the agricultural commodity to which the particular order relates. (Section 8c(3 ) (4).) That the field covered by the Agricultural Act is not coterminus with that covered by the Sherman Act is manifest from the fact that the former is thus delimited by the prescribed action participated in and directed by an officer of government proceeding under the authority specifically conferred by Congress. As to agreements and arrangements not thus agreed upon or directed by the Secretary, the Agricultural Act in no way impinges upon the prohibitions and penalties of the Sherman Act, and its condemnation of private action in entering into combinations and conspiracies which impose the prohibited restraint upon interstate commerce remains untouched." [Emphasis supplied.]

Anent that, this: "Of Shoes--and Ships--and Sealing-Wax...: Take One"--(Recorded, OO of WH, March 23, 1971; Dramatis Personae: (You know their names, look up their numbers.))

Introductory valediction: "'How would you like to live in Looking-glass House, Kitty? I wonder if they'd give you milk in there? Perhaps Looking-glass milk isn't good to drink--But oh, Kitty! now we come to the passage. You can just see a little PEEP of the passage in Looking-glass House, if you leave the door of our drawing-room wide open: and it's very like our passage as far as you can see, only you know it may be quite different on beyond. Oh, Kitty! how nice it would be if we could only get through into Looking-glass House! I'm sure it's got, oh! such beautiful things in it! Let's pretend there's a way of getting through into it, somehow, Kitty. Let's pretend the glass has got all soft like gauze, so that we can get through. Why, it's turning into a sort of mist now, I declare! It'll be easy enough to get through--' She was up on the chimney-piece while she said this, though she hardly knew how she had got there. And certainly the glass WAS beginning to melt away, just like a bright silvery mist."

Nixon: Yeah.

Connally: ...we've introduced a bill."

Nixon: All right.

Connally: But I know somebody down here can make a little time with them. How much, how much I don't know. But it's worth trying, obviously, because they're both extremely interested in it.

Ehrlichman: Phil, move over there, would you. We'd like to get the picture of some of the House groups that are interested in the topic [unintelligible]. All together now...

...Nixon: There's one thing about this, it's one thing about this industry that is, uh, quite interesting. It's that, uh, it's, uh, it's a big business. From the standpoint--you know, they go into this business, you know, and people say--It--As a matter of fact, I get the impression, Cliff, and I'm not too much of an expert on the farmer, but I get the impression that--For example, with regard, uh, uh, regarding, regarding the price of hogs. People who go into that business, from what I gather--it's pretty easy, isn't it?

Hardin: Changing the par--when compared

Nixon: The dairy business, on the other hand, requires an enormous net invest--, investment. You know, you can raise more pigs, right?

Hardin: Yes. And the, and the times get--

Nixon: Fast. Fast. And that's why the pig, po--, the corn-hog ratio uh--that business goes up and down almost like an escalator, doesn't it?

Unidentified: Right.

Connally: Mr. President, two litters per year and the average now is running better than seven pigs per litter, isn't it?

Campbell: Mr. President, there has been some studies run on this and the cost is approximately, it approaches two thousand dollars per cow. So you just multiply fifty cows, a hundred cows, a hundred-fifty cows by two, two thousand dollars. You've got a pretty good investment.

Nixon: Well, you have an enormous--so somebody is going to go into that business.

Unidentified: Yeah.

Nixon: I mean, uh, there are added things; it's, it's a big, uh--

Campbell: Big chunk of cash. Can't go less than fifty cows,...

Nixon: I know. Yeah.

Campbell: ...seventy or eighty.

Nixon: Yeah. Yeah.

Hardin: But, uh, we had, what, a million dairy farmers, uh, ten years ago and down four hundred thousand from what you were.

Schultz: We have a, uh, we have a problem, too, to, uh, think about here on the antitrust side of this thing, uh, they're going to wind up in trouble.

Hardin: Yes, they may have--

Schultz: If they try to control production,

Hardin: Yeah, they, they...

Schultz: ...they're over--they're, very eager.

Unidentified: [Unintelligible]

Hardin: ...may have already done it. But, uh, ut--

Connally: The significant thing is they have legal counsel and they're following their advice.

Hardin: Well--

Nixon: Good.

Schultz: They do have a good legal counsel.

Ehrlichman: They have a good one.

Nixon: They've got them all over the country.

Connally: Uh, there are many folks [unintelligible] but I don't know Cliff what you're talking about.

Hardin: Uh, well, they're, they're sure, they're sure awfully close to the line. They are not the first group in the economy, that's done that.

Unidentified: Oh, I'll say. [Laughing]

Nixon: Well, we won't prosecute the farmers.

Hardin: Could I bring up just one other thing?

Nixon: Sure.

Hardin: It's a somewhat related subject, Mr. President.

Nixon: Sure.

Hardin: It doesn't have anything to do with this matter; but, uh,--

Nixon: Britain?

Hardin: No.

Nixon: No.

Hardin: Uh? Meat, meat imports. Uh--

Nixon: Oh, that. I thought we decided that.

Hardin: We did.

Nixon: We are going to import aren't we?

Hardin: Uh, a little, uh, as little as possible. But Mr. Houthaker called me yester-- He's convening a meeting now, and, uh, he thinks we ought to force the price of beef down. And let in more imports. And he's, he wants a inter-departmental meeting. I think it's next Tue-- Monday or Tuesday. And this is just going to, uh, raise havoc with the cattlemen all over again. When we just got them all quieted down. They've all written articles; they're just bleeding about what the President did.

Nixon: What would I do, if, if--and didn't--I imported not too much, and meanwhile hold that middle, middle options?

Hardin: Yes. And, uh, they're, and uh, so I called Ed and I said, "Now, I want to see you bleed in your publications. I want you to post all the-- and support the President." He went all out with me on this. "Well," he said, "we [unintelligible] just a little." And I said, "If I see one word [unintelligible] not one damned one of you is ever going to get in my office again. Do I make myself clear?" And they did say it in their publications. They did go all out.

Nixon: Um huh.

Hardin: Uh, so, uh, uh, to open this up again now, it just would be terrible. There's no-- In fact it'll change a bit. It's just a --George, can you, can you collar that guy? And, uh--

Schultz: No, I, I--

Hardin: --He's, he's the one that's given the Nixon Administration the reputation for being for low farm prices. He just-- Every once in a while he comes out with something.

Nixon: Sure never gets reflected in the CPI [Consumer Price Index]. Except, uh--

Hardin: No.

Nixon: Not this last month.

Unidentified: Oh.

Nixon: It was for six months before that, though.

Unidentified: Oh.

Nixon: So we've got to get credit for that.

Schultz: The last few months the wholesale price index has skyrocketed.

Nixon: Yeah. That's what I mean--food.

Schultz: Well, and the Consumer Price Index would have actually been, uh, left no change, if it hadn't been for the big increase in food prices,...

Nixon: Yeah.

Schultz: ...and I'm saying that that--food is going to follow wholesale prices. Business. But, uh, the meat, the meat area is going to be a problem for us. If we're going to get into that, uh--

Hardin: Well, from the consumer's side, it'll be great; it'll be, uh--

Nixon: You, you--

Hardin: You've got to get them [unintelligible]. But the poor customer then [unintelligible].

Schultz: Uh, uh, the, I think the--

Unidentified: [Unintelligible]

Schultz: Well, I understand we're heading into some real problems there, but I--

Nixon: You mean--

Schultz: ...not that I've studied it, yes.

Connally: Yeah. Go on.

Nixon: I would too.

Schultz: Yeah, of course, we're going to import less than we did last year.

Hardin: Possibly.

Schultz: Profit rising.

Unidentified: Yeah.

Hardin: But, I think I'll probably import within ten million pounds of this thing. Isn't that something?

Schultz: But all, all of these things. It's just that, uh, it's the same, it's the same thing when we discuss steel imports or, uh, bunch of these other things--shoes or what have you, and meat. And on the one hand, there is the, the groups that is pushing it; on the other hand there's the consumer. It, uh--as much as--

Hardin: Everybody have one of these dairy departmental committees studying something you can favor.

Schultz: Well that's, well, Houthaker is particularly good at getting it, uh--

Hardin: Yes.

Schultz: [Laughter] These and, uh, I agree with making a speech or something.

Hardin: I don't care if he studies it if he can keep his trap shut. But, uh, if he passes us by, okay.

Nixon: Let's have nothing said about it. Is that fair enough? That is if we're going to have to do it.

Schultz: He has to call up and put his hand on that.

Nixon: Will you tell him all about the increase?

Schultz: Study it aid, uh, follow up on that.

Hardin: You can't; you can't convene an interdepartmental committee in this government and not--and then keep it out of the papers.

Ehrlichman: Oh, sure you can.

Unidentified: Um?

Ehrlichman: Sure you can. Yeah. Threaten them a lot. [Laughter]

Nixon: The cattlemen have been pretty good friends, for us, too.

Connally: Well, cattle prices are down. How much are they down uh, in the past

Unidentified: Not too much.

Connally: few months?

Hardin: They're going back up again, John, a little bit.

Unidentified: But, uh--

Hardin: They're not so high, and so forth.

Connally: No, they're not their highest.

Schultz: Same statement.

Hardin: There is kind of--

Connally: Oh, if they're falling some, George, my [unintelligible] two or three [unintelligible] do a study Agriculture [unintelligible] study [unintelligible]

[Several voices] [Unintelligible]

Connally: Um hm, cattle prices. It'll shock you. And just remember when you talk about food prices, now, and, and bleed for the consumer, that today, food prices in the United States are cheaper than they've ever been in the history of this nation. In terms of what it takes for, well, uh, hours of work to feed a family. Sixteen percent. That's the lowest in the history of the world. And--

Schultz: So that--

Unidentified: He's my favorite secretary [unintelligible] [Laughter]

[Several voices] [Unintelligible]

Schultz: You might study the [unintelligible] crises awhile. [Unintelligible] of all the things that--

Unidentified: Where are they?

Unidentified: [Unintelligible]

Nixon: Well, we'll try to keep the cattlemen from getting on our necks for the moment.

Rice: We've got a, one loose end left on the, uh,...

Nixon: Yeah.

Rice: ...the rate,

Nixon: Uh huh.

Rice: and it seems to be one other thing we are going to have to do is coordinate the timing of the announcement--which we have to make, uh, very closely with these contacts. And--

Ehrlichman: Yeah. Well, right after this--

Rice: So that someone who is contacted doesn't--

Ehrlichman: We'll coordinate that, Don. Uh, I think we'll have to get the group together. Uh, we'll have to get Colson and Bob Dole in this, too. And, uh, so--

Nixon: Well, because Colson dealing with the, uh-- Well, in any event, I think you got a good game plan. You, you'd, uh, you know that to commit your, your friends and our friends and so on, for political reasons you do, uh, Mr. Mills and Mr., uh, [sigh] Albert. And then, uh, I, uh, I understand Phil will get the dairy people and make the--and say, "All right, you don't bug us next year."

Unidentified: That's right.

Campbell: And you are going to do the same thing, George, with the Speaker.

Schultz: Yeah.

Nixon: All right.

Schultz: What we're going to, is--

Unidentified: We're going to pressure this thing.

Schultz: ...eighty-five percent of parity.

Unidentified: Pardon?

Unidentified: Is that right?

Nixon: It's eighty-five.

Schultz: We're not suddenly going for 5.05, and I would guess 4.98.

Connally: No, we're going for 4.92.

Schultz: 4.92. That's 85% of parity that's right

Nixon: Fair enough.

Unidentified: All right.

Ehrlichman: Better go get a glass of milk.


Ehrlichman: Drink it while it's cheap.

Unidentified: But you know--

Unidentified: That's really--

Unidentified: [Unintelligible] might work.

Nixon: [Unintelligible] Yeah, I told them. I said, milk is a sedative. Milk is a sedative.

Hardin: Say, I told the President this morning that on that T.V. show last night-- Uh, uh, that, that few times when he looked right into the lens--

Unidentified: Great.

Hardin: Uh, that one...just magnetic.

Connally: May I have, may I have two minutes with you on another matter?

Nixon: Sure, sure, sure. Sit down. Absolutely.

Postscript: John Connally was acquitted in 1975 of allegations that during his tenure as Secretary of Treasury in 1971-72 he accepted a $10,000 bribe from the milk industry to fix prices.

Albeit not on milk or pig price-fixing, the President did not fare so well.

Uh, it was then that he started using the--uh, you know, what do you call the [expletive deleted] things? --yeah, yeah--sedatives. [Laughter.]

[Expletive deleted], where is [unintelligible], [expletive deleted]? I've got some things to talk to him about regarding that [expletive-deleted] thing on the limited hang-out business over that, that hotel or whatever it was. Can we do that? I think we can. Why not? Yeah, I know where we can get a few hundred thousand. They did it. We can, too. Get him in here, Ron. What are you good for? Also, where is the [unintelligible]? Let's get some real, you know, thugs working for us this time. We didn't use it last time, but we sure as hell will this time, [expletive deleted]. [Lots of laughter.]

You know, when that old [expletive deleted] told me about this stuff back in late '62, that it was that or risk World War III, I said no. I wouldn't go along. Terrible thing for the country. I couldn't. Knew it would never come to that. So I said no. I did. I said no. But then he started in with threatening to reveal the whole Bay of Pigs thing, you know, what we had done in '59-'60. It was that important, beyond me, my reputation, he said. Oh sure--his, his job on the line. Never mind me, the others. And, well, it was all for the good of the party, I mean, the country, hell, the world in the end. People would never understand that though, never. Terrible thing. I had nothing to do with it though. You know that. Would never be involved in anything like that. Too much risk of exposure. Besides, it's just politics. No, I wasn't in the loop on any of it. They used me in fact, just to shut me up on it. Pepsi. Wish I'd never heard of Pepsi. [Inaudible segment.] And get me an update on Hoffa since I let him out. We need labor, you know. Always got to have labor on board to win. Salt of the earth-- Yeah. How are things going on that, you know, Beatle thing? Say, isn't he the one who thinks he's Jesus or something?

The Happy Pair*

Bride And Groom Of 50 Years Ago Live Up To Their Promise

"... A more popular pair never stood before the marriage altar in Charlotte. Charlotte never claimed a better son than Heriot Clarkson, and a bride fairer than he has won, is not to be found anywhere. Happiness and joy be with them always."--From The Charlotte News of Dec. 10, 1889.

Thus auspiciously began the association as husband and wife between young Heriot Clarkson and Miss Mamie Osborne, the golden anniversary of which they and their friends are celebrating with a reception tonight. It must give them boundless satisfaction to be transported for the moment back to this exciting, trustful beginning of their wedded life and then to bridge the many years that have gone before the present by gathering in festivity with them the children of that marriage, the children of those children, many other friends of those days, even attendants in that 1889 wedding ceremony, their friends they both have made during the Justice's long and distinguished career.

It is a golden anniversary in more than lapse of time alone. It is golden in spirit and accomplishment and in the depth of family feeling of the two principals, and it deserves a golden celebration.

By Facts Only

Court Ignores Technicality In Chicago Milk Case

One thing which is increasingly clear about the present Supreme Court is that it is generally impatient with mere technicalities. In one of the decisions handed down Monday, it decreed that a company union of the employees of the Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. must be dissolved, though the employees themselves were satisfied and did not desire it. But the Wagner Act is quite explicit in forbidding company unions altogether, and the Supreme Court, of course, has to abide the law, even when it seems silly.

But in the case of the milk dealers in Chicago, the Court, with Chief Justice Hughes writing the decision, summarily swept aside the contention that the provision of the AAA act which allows producers of agricultural commodities to combine for their sale, relieved these dealers from the terms of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. If the producers in the Chicago area had actually made an agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture to take advantage of this provision, said the decision, then it would have been a valid bar to prosecution under the Sherman Act. But they had, in fact, done no such thing, and so the technicality that such course was open to them if they had chosen could not be allowed to give them a free hand to do as they pleased.

Not too many people will doubt that essential justice was done. The case has nothing to do, in reality, with a fair price for the dairy farmer's milk, since the distributors are usually not the dairy farmers at all. And price-fixing and monopoly in milk are particularly unpleasant, for in great cities like Chicago the difference in a few cents on the bottle may and does determine whether thousands of children will get their daily ration of this basic food which is essential to their health and proper growth.

Site Ed. Note: Got milk?


Italy Gives Hitler Notice To Stop His Russian Ally

What Mussolini is going to do ultimately is an unknown quantity, and it may be that there is too much confident assumption, on the basis of wish-thinking, that he is in the end going to come in with the Allies.

Nevertheless, the only plausible interpretation of the new Italian statement of foreign policy is that it is intended as an invitation and warning to Hitler to use his influence to see that Russia stays out of the Balkans, under penalty of finding the Fascist forces lined up with England and France.

It carefully maintains the position that the military alliance with Germany is still good and that the only reason that Italy hasn't entered the war on the Nazi side is that it is unnecessary. Also, it assumes a belligerent attitude toward England and France, by warning that Italy will protect her commerce to the hilt.

But all that is probably for the record, to be used as justifying an eventual complete break with Hitler if he fails to heed and effectively act upon what is the core of the statement--the warning that Italy views everything that happens in the Danube Basin as directly concerning herself.

So far, certainly, Italy has not in fact been belligerent toward the sea policy of the Allies, but on the contrary has accepted it very neatly (in some ways, it actually works out to her advantage). And it is altogether doubtful that the Italian people would stand for an attempt really to make good on the military alliance with Germany. On the other hand, they undoubtedly would fight Red Russia with hearty willingness.


A Judge Argues Against His Own Position

Judge James G. Wallace, who presided at the trial for Fritz Kuhn, is peeved at some of the newspaper editorial writers and columnists, particularly Walter Winchell, for their remarks during the course of the case. Says he:

"Under our democratic system of government, the latitude given the newspapers is too wide. Some abuse the the rare privilege they have in this country and if the abuse goes much further, these privileges one day may be curtailed. We do not have the same rules that exist in England... I wish I had the power an English judge has, and I would cheerfully jail some of the newspaper representatives."

It is possible to feel a certain sympathy with the judge. He insisted, very rightly, that Kuhn be tried only on charges of theft, and not for his opinions, however hateful. And undoubtedly, some of the commentators did their best to turn the trial into a witch-hunt.

Nevertheless, it seems to us that the judge is unduly excited; his own refusal to grant a retrial testifies to his believe that Kuhn got only justice. And moreover the judge is far from consistent with himself. He maintained explicitly from the bench that, however much Kuhn had abused the right of free speech, he was still entitled to it under our Bill of Rights--since the right to abuse free speech is inherently a part of free speech itself. Now he turns around and tells us that the same thing does not at all apply to a free press. On the whole, it seems to us that it is just as well that Judge Wallace hasn't got the power of an English judge. He might be tempted to misuse it.

Use of Strength*

The All Stars Play That Children May Be Made Whole

Somebody upped with a masterful slogan for the Shrine All Star football game that is to be played here in Memorial Stadium tomorrow. "Strong legs will run that weak legs may walk."

The proceeds of this annual game go, as perhaps you know, to the Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children in Greenville, S.C. And there's no more appealing charity than the correction of malformities in children so that they may face the world stoutly and without shame on their own legs.

Besides, a football game between selected high school stars of the two friendly Carolinas is in its own right a colorful, thrilling spectacle. In consideration of this and its beneficent purpose, Charlotte must be proud to play host to the affair.

Our Way

Which Seems To Differ From Clapper's American Way

In his discussion of the American Way in his column Wednesday Mr. Clapper climaxed his argument with the case of prohibition. We tried it, says he, though it was plainly a severe limitation on liberty. "It didn't work. We got rid of it. That is the American Way."

Maybe so, but that leaves us worried about Charlotte and Mecklenburg and its end of North Carolina generally. Aren't we in the United States?

It is 32 years since we began trying prohibition. It hasn't worked. It plainly isn't going to work. But we haven't got rid of it, and the chances even now seem a little slim. What kind of way is that? We can think of several names for it, but, unfortunately, none of them is to our credit.

Framed Edition
[Return to Links-Page by Subject] [Return to Links-Page by Date] [Return to News--Framed Edition]
Links-Date -- Links-Subj.