Page 2
University Daily Kansan
Friday, Jan. 8, 1965
A Road for Daisy Hill
Nasty rumors have started circulating again that some kind of second access road is being planned for the Daisy Hill residence hall area—or maybe it's just wishful thinking.
These rumors seem to crop up every once in a while among the residents of the four large dormitories located along Engle Road. Anyone who has ever ventured up to that area on a game day or, worse yet, on homecoming weekend, would agree that something certainly needs to be done.
THE BOTTLENECK CAUSED by cars turning around in the halls' parking lots as men either leave or arrive to pick up their dates reaches the proportions of the ridiculous at Ellsworth Hall.
And with almost 1,000 more students to be added next year in the new McCullom Hall, the situation could well be impossible.
At particularly difficult times, policemen are posted at the single outlet on 15th Street to direct traffic. They try to bring some order to the chaos and no doubt do a world of good, but the fact is that there are simply too many cars trying to use
this one road to cause anything but an hour's wait to make the round trip.
ONE ROAD RUNNING into and around the area was probably quite adequate when only one or two of the high-rising dormitories were built, but with the addition of Hashinger and Ellsworth and another one to open in the fall it seems hardly reasonable to assume that it would still be adequate.
Next year more than 2,000 students will be living in the area, and those who don't own their own cars will certainly have friends who will be picking them up on many occasions.
Each year there are new rumors that a street is to be constructed at the south end of Engle Road which would allow cars to pass through the area instead of having to drive into it, turn around and drive out the same way.
Some rumors call for the long-talked-of new street to go west to Iowa Street, others say it will go down the hill and connect with Naismith Drive. Nobody seems too particular about where the new road should go, just so it goes somewhere out.
The Check Along the Line
-Kay Jarvis
Harry Truman will be remembered as the mild-mannered Missouri storekeeper who threw off his restraints upon succession to the presidency and became a rowdy, hell-raising fighter for his beliefs. It was his willingness to go wholeheartedly into battle that sustained him through that uncertain campaign of 1948. It was this same willingness, too, that plunged him out of sight of his constitutional limits when he tried to fend off a threatened steel strike by nationalizing the industry in 1952. Mr. Truman was promptly told by the Supreme Court to hand the mills right back to their owners, which he did.
The Man from Missouri seems destined to occupy a fairly high position when historians are better able to assess his administration. What, then, caused him to overstep his authority in the closing months of his stay in office?
AT THE TIME the steel dispute arose, the United States was engaged in the Korean War, and steel production was of vital importance to our national defense. The contract which the United Steelworkers of America had with the large producers was to expire Dec. 31, 1951. Negotiations did not go well, and the union called a strike for the expiration date, only to postpone it indefinitely when President Truman sent the wage dispute to the Wage Stabilization Board.
On March 20, 1952, the wage board recommended a three-stage salary increase of 26.4 cents an hour, which the union accepted. Steel management, however, rejected the suggested settlement. A deadlock ensued, and it appeared certain that a strike would take place on April 8.
The strike deadline was only 90 minutes away when the President's face appeared on television screens. He declared:
"I have to think about our soldiers in Korea . . . the weapons and ammunition they need . . . our soldiers and our allies in Europe . . . our atomic energy program . . . our domestic economy. We are faced by the possibility that at midnight the steel industry will be shut down. This must not happen."
HE THEREUPON "SEIZED" the steel mills, put them under the direction of Secretary of Commerce Sawyer, and ordered the government's newest army of workers to report to their jobs. The steel companies, of course, immediately went to court over the seizure, obtained an injunction and then waited for the Supreme Court to act on the government's appeal.
The historic, 6-3 court decision of June 2 said that the President had violated the Constitution by usurping the legislative powers reserved to Congress. Only Congress had the authority to do what President Truman took upon himself to do, the majority said.
INFLUENTIAL PUBLICATIONS lauded the Supreme Court decision. The New York Times called it "a redefinition of the power of the President. . . . The issue was not whether the U.S. government could seize private property for public use in a time of emergency but whether the President of his own volition could do so." Time magazine, in its typically editorializing way, accused Truman of acting "primarily as a politician, not as a President. It remained for the Truman Administration . . . to argue that the President's power is practically unlimited."
President Truman could take comfort, though, from the words of a Republican predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, who once remarked that it was "not only (a President's) right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded, unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws."
Since the Constitution did not specifically deny the President the right to seize private property, he obviously took a liberal view of the document and could therefore say in good faith that he made his decision "by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States."
But it was, almost everyone has agreed by now, an unwise decision. For one thing, the President had not exhausted the laws available to him in preventing strikes. The Taft-Hartley Act provided for an 80-day "cooling-off" period in the case of a national emergency. But this law was passed in 1947 by a Republican Congress over Mr. Truman's veto and violent opposition, and the President apparently wanted nothing to do with the act, whose existence he must not have wanted to recognize.
IN THE SECOND PLACE, Mr. Truman failed to gain confidence in his administration's ability to deal with an emergency. He did not enter into the fray until the eleventh hour, despite the seriousness of the threat in a time when the United States were fighting an overseas war. By then, his efforts were either too little or too late, or both.
With Mr. Truman out of the way, union and management went back to each other's throats. The steelworkers went on strike within hours after the Supreme Court announced its decision. Not until July 24, six weeks later, did they return to work. Ironically, it came after the impotent President had warned the factions to reach a settlement "or else."
WHAT RESULTED FROM the steel controversy of 1952? Three important points came to mind. Foremost was the setting down of a specific limitation on presidential power—the power to appropriate private property to a public use. Also—and almost as important to this country now—was the need for a President to represent the national interest in labor disputes through the use of persuasion (or whatever name it goes under) rather than by use of brute power. That this has succeeded, at least recently, can be seen in the ability of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson to avert innumerable railroad strikes over the past several years against great odds.
And lastly, it reminded Americans that their freedoms were not at the mercy of would-be Democratic "dictators," as the ultraconservatives had been screaming since Franklin Roosevelt took office. When a President goes against the wishes of the people, there is always a check somewhere along the line to curb him, be it the Supreme Court or the electorate or Congress.
Fred Frailey
A Slice of Cam-Pi
The price of education is getting higher and higher. Not only does college require more work than it used to, every year it costs a little more.
It is worth it? After four years of college, tabulating the cost against what has been learned, we are definitely not getting something for nothing. It does seem though that one does get a lot of nothing for something.
* *
WHERE DOES VIRTUE LIE? Prof. Morris Bishop, the president of the Modern Language Association and who has been a KU Humanities Lecturer was quoted as saying, "If publication is a virtue, so is refraining from publishing unnecessary words." This appeared in the New York Times.
My words and especially this column, I have been told at times, are vitally unnecessary. If I have any virtue at all, it will not appear in this paper. Let tripe fall where it may, and may all editorial writers type in chaos.
The virtue does not lie in what is not said. It lies in what is said well out of the many inches of type that say nothing.
***
AS FAR AS basketball is concerned, let's all be good sports. OK?
- Jim Langg
BOOK REVIEWS
BUDDHIST PAINTINGS, introduction by D. B. Dhanapala; CZECHOSLOVAKIAN MINIATURES, introduction by Jan Kvet; GREEK MOSAISIA, introduction by Andre Grabar; ABORIGINAL PAINTINGS FROM AUSTRALIA, introduction by Charles P. Mountford (all Mentor-UNESCO Art Books, 95 cents each).
This is a tremendous buy for art-lovers, departures from the familiar and giving great insight into the painting of four countries. The reproduction is beautiful; the texts are authoritative.
"Aborginal Paintings from Australia" shows cave and bark paintings by the living representatives of a Stone Age culture. There is a kind of magnificence to these works that is likely to surprise the viewer. "Buddhist Paintings" from Ceylon demonstrate the development of religious wall paintings from the 5th century through recently discovered 12th century murals.
The Czechoslovakian miniatures show the evolution of Bohemian miniature paintings from early times to around 1360. The Greek mosaics are from the 5th to the 14th century. The latter book has reproductions of works from the Palace of the Macedonian Kings at Pella, the monastery of Daphni and the churches of Thessaloniki.
Pr In
Gra gradu to ob and sive.
The in Po for the graduate, nomic science Law who schoo progru
111 Flint Hall
UNiversity 4-3646, newsroom
UNiversity 4-3198, business office
University of Kansas student newspaper
Dailij Mähsan
The ducte grant their gover
EAf
fession d
Centre
the p
sever
try.
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 19
Th magn to ob hand ing pubi intere
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press.
Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York
22, N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates:
$3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon
during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University
holidays, and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence,
Kansas.
Dur gram orien search local facult
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Fol four stude probl with maycr er ir
Fu tions Nehr fore
a sin
senio
intern
Jim Langford and Rick Mabbutt Co-Editorial Editors
CO be an on the evalu and
第1页