Newspaper Page Text
Controls Out of Control Congress Is Taking a Course in Baseball
Consumer to Get Little Relief.From High Prices Under Cost and Margin Provisions of the Act By Wheeler Johnson The Nation last week began to live with a new economic controls law. Congress, scrambling to beat deadlines everywhere, presented it with a measure officially known as the Defense Production Act Amend ments of 1951. The bill is just as formidable as its title. If the average consumer had any hope that he would find magic re lief from high prices in its provisions, the best early estimates of what the bill will do should awaken him from his rosy dream. Certainly the President doesn’t be lieve the bill will do much to halt the inflationary spiral. In signing it about five hours before all controls would have expired Tuesday night, Mr. Truman denounced the measure as “the worst I ever had to sign.” ’Fnrt.hpr hp HpHarpH bp wnulri have vetoed the bill if the inflation control provisions were the only ones with which the act was concerned. But in “reluctantly” signing the measure he went along with the hodge-podge legislation because, ne said, the powers necessary for the defense program would have expired unless he did, and he could not risk the lapse of the rent control and strong materials priority con trol clauses. Pity the Poor Consumer Fears of President Truman and his economic aides that the price control section will do little to help the ultimate consumer appear well founded on examination of some of the act’s provisions. The chief of these is the one re lating to prices of non-farm produces. Under the 1950 measure, the Office of Price Stabilization was permitted to freeze or cut prices back, with prices which prevailed during the month preceding the Korean outbreak be ing the guide for ceilings. The new bill added a provision for the protection of the producer, and because of it the consumer is likely to pay more for many processed goods. The OPS still is allowed to roll prices back to pre-Korean levels, but the agency now is required to recognize, in fixing prices, increases in costs of labor, materials and even sales promotion and advertising from the month preceding Korea up to July 26. In other word€, price ceil ings would have to be fixed at a level assuring retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers their “customary percentage margins over costs.” It appears rather obvious that under this provision the OPS is going to have more prices to roll forward than to roll backward. An indication of what probably will be a general trena came Wednesday, tne day alter the bill was signed by President Truman. Chrysler Corp. gave OPS "unofficial” notice that it will seek a 9% per cent increase in the price of its automobiles. Even before that development, observers had predicted the auto industry in general would ask for increases of about 10 per cent under the profit margin pro vision. President Truman’s feeling about this provision—known as the "Cape hart amendment”—was vividly ex pressed in his statement on signing the bill. The President reserved his bitterest denunciation for this sec tion. He said: “This complicated amendment will force price ceilings upon thousands of commodities, clear across the board. It is like a bulldozer, crash ing aimlessly through existing price formulas, leaving havoc in its wake. “If we are to prevent the weak ening of our economy, we must change these provisions and others just as bad.” Another strong indication that prices are going to continue to rise came Friday when the Wage Stabil ization Board recommended unani mously that cost of living wage in creases be allowed for all workers. The board's policy up until then had been to allow them for workers who are under union contracts having “escalator” clauses. The new policy would open the door to raises for mil lions, and these costs undoubtedly are ultimately going to reach the con sumer. The Wage Stabilization Board’s action was only in line with President Truman’s statement in signing the controls bill. He said then: "To the extent that this act per mits prices and the cost of living to rise, it will be necessary to allow rea sonable adjustments in wages. We cannot ask the working people of this country to reduce their standard of living just to pay for higher profits this act provides for business. . . .” The President also attacked the measure for its failure to allow roll hoplrc nn __i _ — --- w* «v-v* UliU VVH” gress’ refusal to give OPS authority to establish livestock slaughtering quotas—both bady wanted by the administration. The OPS had instituted one 10 per cent beef price rollback and con templated two others. In drawing the bill, both the Senate and House refused to allow the two proposed price cutbacks. In writing the provi sion on farm prices, the conferees stipulated also that except for live stock, prices could be rolled back to 90 per cent of the May 19, 1951, level, or to parity, whichever is higher. Since parity is a system to allow the farmer to receive for his produce an amount on a level with what he pays for manufactured goods, there is little chance for cut backs there. The administration’s economic aides were anxious to have the live stock slaughtering quota restrictions contained in the new bill because they claimed this would help them in controlling meat black markets. They almost got their wish, but a techni cality cost them their victory. Neither the House nor the Senate put this provision in the original draft of the measure. There is some hope among admin istration supporters that quotas even tually will be restored. Several sep arate actions to provide quotas were introduced in Congress last week. Roof Over the Heod As far as rents are concerned, there is a provision for increases. The bill permits increases up to 20 per cent *v,vw ui uuxic, iv*i, m areas now controlled. Increases granted since then would have to be sub tracted from the 20 per cent. The bill permits rollbacks to levels which prevailed just before Korea in the case of newly designated critical defense areas. The Secretary of Defense and the mobilization direc tor are authorized to designate these critical areas. The old law provided for continu ance of Federal rent controls in areas desire<• them. The new law retains this local option provision. Federal controls could not be imposed in any State or local community which has its own rent law unless rents in the State or community rose more rapidly than the national average. The President called the rent provisions “relatively adequate,” although he said they do not meet all of the Nation’s needs. Automobile retailers have com plained bitterly about the consumer credit controls administered by the Federal Reserve Board through regu lation “W” which generally limited installment buying terms. Under the old provision one-third down was required to buy a new or used car and the buyer had to pay up the balance within 15 months. They got some relief (in that the pay-up time was extended to 18 months but the purchaser still has to put up one third of the price as down payment. By Miriam Ottenberg Congressmen are baseball fans, Just like any one else. The chairman of the House Monopoly Subcommittee feels strongly about the Brooklyn Dodgers. One member has the Rochester ball club in his district and thinks it’s a fine ball club. A California legislator believes some West Coast teams would look good in the majors. They all know about Stan Musial, Jackie Robinson and Joe DiMaggio. They are aware of the tight pennant race in the American League, and they realize that Clyde Vollmer is currently the wonder boy of baseball. But, like other ball fans who read but don’t study the sports pages, that’s about all they know about baseball, l Which is why last week’s hearings on the anti-trust aspects of the great American sport developed into such a vuiivuo viviiu vi vivnvwvi ^vvu*i# legal parlance. Sports writers who turned out en masse to cover the first Congressional investigation of base ball were appalled at the abysmal ignorance of the legislators about such matters as waivers, options and what is a Class D League. On the other hand, they couldn’t understand why the Congressmen should stray into discussion of Leo Durocher’s strategy and whether the St. Louis Browns will ever sell Ned Garver. They were puzzled, too, when the same hearing produced such far removed terms as “bean-balling” and “cartels.” Janus-Like Role Actually, the legislators found themselves in a Janus-like role. They had made it their duty as a judiciary subcommittee to find out whether baseball was violating anti trust laws—and, if so, whether base ball should be brought on the right side of the law by exempting it from monopoly curbs. But, at the same time, they had the typical American feeling about baseball that made them look with wide-eyed adulation on the great Ty Cobb and inspired them to ask questions hardly relevant to anti-trust laws. Through it all, however, the legis lators were gradually getting an education about a legal structure more complex than Sam Insull ever dreamed of in his holding company heyday. They needed no lesson in what constituted a monopoly. When ap parently competing industries get together to interfere with full and free competition, you have a monop oly—and the subcommittee is against it. The question is whether baseball can be considered in those terms. Here is an industry governed by the rules of its members rather than by free competition. Here are ball nlatrflvc t ioH Vn' nnntrant fnr baseball life. Here are member clubs with the power to veto where other members’ clubs could practice their ball-playing trade. The subcommittee members had before them a 1922 Supreme Court decision that baseball was neither interstate nor commerce, and there fore was not subject to anti-trust laws. On the other hand, they were aware of pending suits claiming baseball was a monopoly, as well as pending bills of their colleagues to exempt the game from anti-trust laws. On the rostrum with the legislators were Committee Counsel E. Ernest Goldstein and Associate Counsel John Paul Stevens. Their principal chore was to make sure that the two weeks of testimony give the subcom mittee a fair idea of what makes baseball tick. From the witnesses—Ty Cobb and baseball executives—the subcommit tee drew history and the details of working agreements between the leagues. The history was designed to show the coming-of-age travails of baseball, and why its rules were written. The legislators had to study the agreements in detail to under stand how organized baseball is at Photo. Messrs. Frick, Celler and Cobb (left to right) talk it over. once a competitive enterprise and a partnership. As it got down to the monopoly issue, the subcommittee focussed on two arrangements — the “reserve clause” and territorial limitations. The reserve clause, as National League President Ford Frick ex plained, is not an isolated paragraph on a piece of paper. It is a combina tion of the renewal clause in a play er’s contract, and agreements throughout organized baseball. One agreement gives the club that first signs a player the right to “reserve” his services—to tie him up as long as the club wants him. Another agree ment forbids clubs to “tamper” with players on other teams by offering more money. The subcommittee heard one wit ness after another defend the reserve clause. Mr. Cobb said something of the sort was necessary to prevent rich clubs from getting all the talent. Mr. Frick said competition would be lost without It. Harry Simmons, pub licity director for the minor league International Association, called it a rivet in the baseball structure and warned that without it the structure would come tumbling down. George M. Trautman, boss of the minors, said small businessmen who operate minor league clubs as a civic enter prise had to be assured of the con tinuity of their teams to justify car rying on a not very profitable in vestment. Expensive Slavery When Mr. Simmons, in his role as historian, quoted a ball player of the 80’s describing the reserve rule as slavery, Mr. Celler wanted to know if that wasn’t a true description. “At $100,000 a year?” scoffed Mr. Simmons. But Chairman Celler quoted Mr. Frick’s figures that the average major league salary is $12,000 for the six months season. The base pay is $5,000 in the majors and as low as $150 a month in the lowest minor league circuit. Some devious attacks were leveled at the argument that the reserve clause exists to give the fans bal anced competition. It was brought out that penalties for violating the reserve clause originally were leveled only at clubs. Now. the ball player who violates the clause—any ball players who play with or against him—and even the ball park that lets him play—are all penalized. Mr. Celler commented that the ball player who wandered from the fold became an “untouchable,” and any body who had anything to do with him caught the same disease. If, reasoned subcommittee coun sel, the reserve clause existed for the sake of preserving competition be tween clubs in organized baseball, wouldn’t it be enough to penalize only the club? That's how the question of Stan Musial playing ball for Afghanistan got into the act. If Mr. Musial left the St. Louis Cardinals to play for Afghanistan, would it hurt baseball any more than if he quit baseball to sell insurance. Prick was asked. At first, he said, “No, we’d still lose Musial.” But he thought it over and added that if Mr. Musial played base ball elsewnere, there would be a prop erty right involved. Mexican Jumpers The subcommittee noted with in terest that players w'ho “jumped” to the Mexican League were suspended first, the rule to justify their sus pension was written later—and later still the suspensions were lifted de spite the new rule. What do those suspensions have to do with an anti-trust investiga tion? That’s an easy one for a monopoly subcommittee to answer. Sanctions, penalties and prohibitions, if they become extreme, could be considered a concerted boycott in violation of anti-trust laws. Before the week was out, the argu ment over territorial rights was over shadowing the one over the reserve Tv, *■ V, * clubs operate under franchises. Mov ing a major league franchise from one city to another has become about as difficult as moving the Nation’s Capital to Denver. The subcommittee brought out that restrictions surrounding territorial rights have tightened while the popu lation has spread out. The question was whether, under a straight com petitive set - up the baseball map would look different — whether, in other words, this self-regulating in dustry, in distributing its own fran chises, was operating in what the lawyers call “restraint of trade”. Actually, however, this theoretical point was snowed under in a hot debate on the advisability of raising West Coast teams to major league status. Mr. Prick said he would be happy to see a third major league on the West Coast. But he doubted that the Pacific teams themselves had any burning desire for that right now. He said when he told the coast clubs how much it would cost—bigger pay rolls, bigger parks — they thought they'd better wait awhile. Meanwhile, he said, they could be strengthened by special privileges that would help them to build up better teams and larger gate receipts. The subcommittee wasn’t entirely satisfied. Mr. Celler said the big leagues would have to “reorient their thinking” geographically, and he en visaged some future day when four major leagues would be attracting huge and enthusiastic crowds. But one subcommittee member, Representative Keating, Republican, of New York, took a more gloomy view. “I think,” he said “ if we were umpires, we would now be dodging pop bottles.” Four Years of Freedom Shove India and Pakistan to Brink of War By Harold K. Milks NEW DELHI, India.—The birth of India and Pakistan as sovereign nations four years ago resulted quickly in the killing of about a mil lion people in conflict. Thousands have been killed since, and the two big countries fought an undeclared war with air power and other mod ern weapons in 1947-48. Now, as they near their fourth birthday, August 15, the ill-matched twins spawned out of the old British Empire have moved a long way toward the brink of big war. Both are by choice members of the (Brit ish) commonwealth of nations — India as a republic, Pakistan as a dominion. The tinder burning toward an ex plosion is the princely state of Kash mir. India now controls most of it and intends to keep this 80,000 square miles of Himalayan uplands, contain ing the shrine city, Srinagar, the storied vale of Kashmir and the beauties.of the Shallmar gardens of the song. Pakistan intends to keep India from getting a permanent hold uu uiuo atovut vu- auu uauiuv/iiai prize—and economic liability. Moslem Pakistan argues that about 75 per cent of the Kashmiri people are Moslems; India, largely Hindu, but with an all-embracing govern ment, rejects this as the invalid rea soning of a theocratic rule. Never Good Neighbors The pork-shunning Moslem and the cow-venerating Hindu have found it difficult to live side by side in peace in the centuries since champions of Islam from the northwest sacked the country and forced religious conver sions on the Indians. Both religions control the every-day lives of their followers and their every-minute thinking. Communalism prevented the formation of a single national federation when the British ended their rule in 1947. The east and west shoulders of the subcontinent were staked off by the departing British for Pakistan, in recognition of Mos lem predominance in population. The vast lands between, on the same com munal majority basis, were declared Indian. That left Pakistan a country of two widely separated parts with India standing between them. After the chaotic mass migrations of displaced Hindus to India and Moslems to Pakistan, the figure of a million dead was given officially as a conservative estimate. Not all the displaced migrated, and con flicts continued. Moreover, the whole problem was •normously complicated by other fac tors. There were nearly 600 Indian I 1 princely states outside British-ad ministered India. At partition time, Britain left the maharajahs (Hindu) and Nawabs (Moslem) two choices: Either to join India or Pakistan, or to try the independent way. Kashmir (more properly “Jammu and Kashmir,” since it is a merger of adjoining states) one of the larg est of the princely domains, was a special case: A Moslem majority peo ple ruled by a Hindu, but with a mixed Moslem-Hindu nationalist, pro-Indian party dominating its poli tics. Fighting began in Kashmu not long after the Aug. 15, 1947, par titioning. By force of arms against Pakistan irregulars and Moslem tribesmen, the Indian army - got control of most of Kashmir and the United Nations was asked to settle the issue. A cease-fire line was drawn and a truce has prevailed since Feb 2, 1949. But the old scars festered. Cries for “Jehad” (holy war) are being shouted in Pakistan. Hot words come in answer from India. Pakistan’s Premier Liaquat Ali Khan, who inherited the Moslem League and national rule from the i» -■ ■» . —■■■■ late Mahomed All Jinnah, blamed India for increasing tensions by mov ing troops to the Pakistan frontier recently. Indian leaders retorted that they moved only after repeated . threats of holy war. They charged the outbursts from Pakistan were propaganda geared to these factois: 1. The arrival of United Nations mediator Frank Graham in an effort to reach a solution. 2. The action of the Kashmir state government under Premier Sheikh Abdullah — a Moslem regarded by Pakistan as a turncoat and tool of India—in ordering the election of a constituent assembly for Kashmir in September. Pakistan protested to the U. N. that this was a move toward union with India despite Indian as surances it was purely a Kashmir matter. 3. A feeling in Pakistan that it has the support of the world press and opinion. India contends this contrib utes to a belligerent attitude and complains outside opinion is clouded by superficial acceptance of the Mos lem majority rights alone. The dispute is being waged at the top level by two leaders who were political crown princes to historic figures who lived barely long enough to see their ambitions for national independence fulfilled: Jinnah, who died a natural death, and Mohandas K. Gandhi, who was assassinated by a Hindu fanatic ring. Liaquat, wealthy and slow-speak ing, sat beside Jinnah nearly 25 years in the All-India Moslem League. Since Jinnah’s death 13 months after Pakistan was created, Liaquat has ruled almost unchallenged. India’s man is the brilliant, emo tional Jawaharlal Nehru, Gandhi’s protege. Nehru is a pandit (learned man) by heritage as well as Kash miri Brahmin. Liaquat has behind him a Moslem population with a watchword of "Jehad.'’ This unity of purpose bal ances in part Pakistan’s relatively small population of 80 million against India’s 360 million of various shades, divergent creeds and many tongues. Nehru has political opposition per sonally and in his ruling Congress Party. He also faces some opposition to his Kashmir policies, particularly in the Hindu deep south. Kashmir itself is ruled today, be CHINA , ' . Hau ar _ ;5+INDIA '—■ • S * PAKISTAN^* Bombay!*-- V- • - " V--»»y>V fiO/g/Vfil — r i hind Indian bayonets, by Premier Sheikh Abdullah’s state government. The towering, bearded Moslem took over when Maharajah Sir Hari Singh, now 56, acceded his realm to India on October 27, 1947. Later, Hari Singh went to Bombay, the seaside play ground of unemployed Indian royalty, leaving the crown prince as figure head regent. Abdullah holds almost absolute power over the Kashmiris but India handles foreign affairs, communications and defense—and supplies funds w'hen the treasury is empty Once Fought Side by Side The state lives off valley farming, home industry and tourists. Kashmir is synonymous with fine woolen tex tiles (American women call them cashmere), as well as brocades and embroideries. It has important wool trade connections with Tibet and Sinkiang, both under Red Chinese domination. Srinagar (the “blessed city” capi tal) is 5,000 feet above sea level against a backdrop of the high Hi malayas to the north. Entry from mum Dy mug is mrougn me nanmnai Pass and what U. N. Mediator Gra ham—a North Carolinian—calls some of the world’s most beautiful land scape. In winter, Kashmir is virtually snowbound. Land communications into Kashmir are far better from the Pakistan side. War between Pakistan and India would be war between officers and men who fought together against all three Axis powers in World War II—in Asia, Africa and Europe. Many friendships endure between these old soldiers of the British imperial armies. The question of British leadership in the navies and air forces of both nations has been raised repeatedly during the current tension. The United States and Britain are attacked by both sides for their posi tions on the Kashmir question. India accuses them of favoring Pakistan in the U. N. resolution call ing for Indian forces to get out of Kashmir. Some Indians feel the Western powers have been cool to India since Nehru supported the Red China’s admission to the U. N. and refused to condemn China as an aggressor in Korea. Pakistanis say the United States strengthened India economically by the wheat shipments that were sent to relieve famine conditions. Thus far, communism has had little or no part in the India-Pakistan dispute. UiwetiM rnu.) k Slippery Offshore Oil New Arguments Revive Tidelands Issue Abouf Who Owns Salt Water Wells By Huqh Humphrey The lengthy and popularly mis named “tidelands” oil controversy was fanned into flame again last week when the House approved a bill by Representative Walter, Democrat, of Pennsylvania which, if enacted into law, will overturn three recent Su preme Court decisions and take tre mendous oil reserves from Federal control. Since 1937, the word “tidelands” has cropped up with increasing fre quency, and if the layman is slightly confused by the arguments, it’s small wonder. For the catchword “tide lands” is in itself a misnomer. Geo graphically, the word applies to the land lying between the high tide and low tide marks of any coastal area. These strips average 100 to 200 yards in width and are not involved in the current dispute, since they are legally recognized as the property of the States they adjoin. With oil and its financial and na tional defense potentialities involved, the current argument begins where the tidelands strips end. It covers the ofT-shore ocean bottom known as the continental shelf of the United States—commonly defined as the area extending from the shoreline to any point where the ocean depth exceeds 600 feet. Apart from national defense re quirements, the Federal Government isn’t interested in what happens on the ocean surface above this shell. The States’ rights to control fishing, crime and other matters within the “three-mile limit” of coastal waters is recognized legally, but the Govern ment contends that it owns the land beneath the ocean under international law. Whose Oilfields? Most coastal States have no quar rel on this question. But for Cali fornia, Texas and Louisiana, control of these submerged off-shore lands involves millions of dollars from the rich oil deposits in the ocean bed. About 60 years ago, oil was discov ered off the California coast, and until 1937, the United States Gov ernment was content to let the State issue leases to private interests for exploitation. As recently as 1933, the Interior Department refused to issue Federal permits for private prospect ing in the area, contending that it was a State-controlled matter. But the Navy for years has pressed for huge Federally owned oil reserves and in 1937, the Interior Department reversed its position and decided that the off-shore oil fields .were Govern ment property. The States involved reacted quickly, and Louisiana arbitrarily proclaimed ownership of all off-shore land ex tending 27 miles into the Gulf of Mexico. Texas, acting under its con stitution and the terms of its ad mittance into the Union, claimed rights to a “three-league” (IOV2 miles) area off shore. In 1941, the Lone Star State extended this claim to 27 miles, and then in 1947 an nounced ownership of the entire con tinental shelf off its shore. California stuck to the three-mile limit. An argument advanced often by supporters of State control was the fear that the Federal Government intended to claim ownership of all submerged land—both inland and ocean bottom. It was predicted that a city, built on land reclaimed from a river or lake bottom, could be taken over as Federal property. The Government ridiculed this notion, and after nearly 10 years of 6tudy, filed suit against the three States. The Supreme Court upheld the United States in each Case, and in junctions were issued forbidding the States to lease any new oil conces sions. Those companies already operating oil wells off shore were permitted to continue production. More Than Its Due Then California injected a new issue. Forbidden to control the off shore land, the State claimed rights over all bays and other bodies of water lying inside its shoreline. On the surface, the State appeared to have a logical argument based on the Government’s repeated denial of any intent to take over inland water areas. However, several bays on the California coastline are extremely broad and under international law. an inland water area is defined as one whose mouth does not exceed 10 miles across from points of land. In the case of Santa Monica Bay, me instance is .so nines, so uic wnuie issue headed into the courts again where decisions are now pending. The Walter bill, passed last Mon, day, would give the States complete ownership of all land in the 3-mile off-shore limit (Texas got its IOV2 mile area). Beyond the 3-mile limit and out to the edge of the continental shelf, the submerged land would be under control of the Interior Depart ment. The States, however, would get a 37 y2 per cent royalty. In their argument for complete Federal control, United States attor neys point out that only national sovereignty is recognized in inter national affairs, and for the protec tion of these off-shore lands, the Government must retain control. Otherwise, they say, there would exist the somewhat fantastic possibility that a State could lease oil rights to a hostile foreign power. While such action is inconceivable, there is a definite danger that the inland oil reserves of the Nation may be exhausted too soon. Many Gov ernment experts feel that the off shore fields should be controlled and leased by the Federal Government to private interests for use now, while reducing operations in the inland fields. This, they point out, would give the Nation a usable petroleum supply now and in turn would con serve the inland fields for operation in case future enemy action pre vented access to the ocean oil wells. For the States involved, the argu ment appears to revolve around financial return from royalties; for the Nation, the situation seems to be based primarily on long-range defense planning. Self-Government: Puerto Rico on the Threshold By Edward Tomlinson SAN JUAN. Puerto Rico—The 2.2 million United States citizens of Puerto Rico finally are on the thresh old of almost complete self-govern ment. Moreover, if present plans for their own constitution carry, Puerto Ricans will experience fewer Federal restraints, and enjoy greater auton omy and more economic benefits from Uncle Sam than any State of the Union. This is a long way for an over crowded island territory—which has never been anything like self-support ing—to travel within the brief span of 53 years since it was ceded to this country by Spain. In fact, even now its political ties with the mainland are all but imperceptible. It has no voting representation in Congress But at home it elects its owm Gov ernor and its owm Legislature, con sisting of a Senate and House of Rep resentatives. It makes its own laws, levies its own taxes, but pays no revenue whatsoever to the Federal Government. Every official on the island is chosen by the voters, the Legislature, or appointed by the Gov ernor—except the auditor and the members of the Supreme Court, who are appointed by the President Only One Judge Only one Federal judge is assigned to the island, although its population is equal to the population of many of the States, some of which have several Federal judges. Decisions of the Federal and local courts may be, but seldom are, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at Boston, oi for re view by the United States Supreme Court. At the current rate of progress it is expected that the constitution vill be ready for ratification by the Puerto Rican people and the Congress of the United States by next January. No one admits that there is yet a tentative draft of the document. But no administration as pow erful and in as complete control of all the agencies of government as that of Gov. Luis Munoz Marin and his Popular Democratic Party would be likely to leave the pro visions of so important a treatise to the whims of members on the floor of the Constitutional Conven tion. At any rate, most of the offi cials close to the Governor seem to have very definite ideas as to what it will contain—or, better still, what it will not contain. According to these spokesmen, the document will contain a bill of rights with particular attention to the pro tection of minorities, with emphasis on the protection of races and groups rather than on that of the individual. Probably the one thing which the present administration of the island desires more than anything else is the right and power to elect or ap point the auditor and all officials as well as members of the judiciary including justices of the Supreme Court. This is its most controversial feature, giving rise to fears that the judiciary might become subservient to Puerto Rico’s one powerful poli tical party. If these Idea* prevail—If they ue finally embodied in the document— and are eventually approved by the Federal Government, Puerto Rico will be something entirely new under the United States flag. Its relation ship with the mainland would more nearly resemble the relationship of Canada with Great Britain than that of a self-governing territory with a mother country. The local courts will be so all-powerful that an individual would seldom have the means or the influence to get his grievance beyond ’ the island’s Supreme Court. Some few officials express the be lief that eventually the island might become a State of the Union, with its own representatives in the Senate and House of Representatives in Washington. Eut this is hardly pos sible within the forseeable future. There is a popular saying among Puerto Rican politicians: “We would like to join the Union but we are not in a position to pay the dues.” In fact, the underlying desire for the form of island rule now being worked out is dictated almost wholly by the American dollar. Not only do all tax receipts from every source remain in the insular treasury, but Puerto Ricans enjoy all of the bene fits accruing to the citizens of the mainland from the various govern mental agencies. In times of econom v* loco iv tiij an tiic i-rc.tic.uvd U1 Federal relief. From 1933 to 1941, more than $230 million were poured into the island in the form of unem ployment relief and loans. If the political aspirations of the present regime seem to be extremely nationalistic, it must not be forgot ten that Gov. Munoz and his associates are and have always been independence-minded. Many Puerto Ricans say the Governor would still be for complete separation from the United States if there were even a remote possibility of the island be coming self-supporting. One-Party Setup It should be said here that very few Puerto Ricans question the in intentions and judgment of Munoz himself. But, as one of his critics put it: “The present government is the government of a single political party headed by a powerful indivi dual. If Munoz should pass out of the picture suddenly, some one much less scrupulous and much more dan gerous might take his place.” Another important consideration in this connection is the fact that Puerto Rico, most of whose citizens are of direct Spanish and European origin, has less in common with the United States mainland than have several of the independent republics of the hemisphere. Since the island took over control of its educational system in 1949, English, hitherto a required subject at the university, is no longer compulsory. From an educational and cultural standpoint, American influence has been very limited. Whether the new constitution, guaranteeing a maximum of bene fits with a minimum of responsibility, will strengthen the ties that bind us to Puerto Rico is something only time will tell. But, at the moment anyway, it seems rather doubtful.