Evening star. [volume], August 24, 1963, Page A-4, Image 4

About Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
W Jaening Slat
With Sunday Morning Edition
Published by THE EVENING STAR NEWSPAPER CO., Washington 3, D. C.
SAMUEL H. KAUFFMANN, Chairman at the Baartf
CROSBY N. BOYD, PiesMwd ‘ NEWBOLD NOYES, Editor
BENJAMIN M. McKELWAY, Fditorio/ Chairman
A-4
Apprentice Equality
The labor-management attack
against the Government’s anti-discrim
ination order on plumbing apprentice
ship programs Is unfortunate on two
counts. First, It Is premature, In that
the details of a compliance directive,
which will throw more light on a num
ber of the points at issue, are still the
subject of discussion in the Labor
Department. Secondly, the industry
statement erroneously implies that the
Government order would require the
selection of plumber apprentices on a
basis of racial quotas—a practice which
President Kennedy forthrightly and
properly lambasted at his recent news
conference.
On their part, the plumbers contend
that the sole basis now used by their
local union-management committees In
selecting apprentices is the qualification
of applicants, as determined by specific
requirements (such as a high-school
education) and by a number of more
subjective judgments. The nub of the
Labor Department position Is that a
simple determination of minimum qual
ifications—even If reached without con
sideration of race, which surely is not
the case in every instance —is not
enough. For this process merely serves
to place the name of a qualified candi
date on a list. The missing ingredient,
the department maintains, is a more
refined process of grading to assure that
the qualified Negro applicant actually
will be placed in training on the basis
of his “merit” in relation to other qual
ified applicants.
It is no easy task to develop guide
lines which would satisfy this require
ment. That, however, is the task on
which the department, in consultation
with a variety of labor and manage
ment leaders, is now engaged. Very like
ly, there will be no attempt to define
specific, rigid national standards for any
apprentice trade. It is the intention to
leave local apprenticeship councils the
greatest possible flexibility in develop
ing their own selection processes—so
long as these processes demonstrably
preclude racial discrimination.
The plumbers regard this entire
move* as unwarranted Federal intrusion
into an area which traditionally has
been left to private, voluntary judgment.
There is no doubt that a degree of their
freedom of action would be taken away.
This loss must be weighed in the larger
sense, however, against the question of
whether the Government really intends
to carry out the presidential directive
that federally registered apprenticeship
programs must be conducted on a “com
pletely non-discrimlnatory basis.” If
that is a worthy goal, and we think it
is, effective Federal surveillance of
selection procedures is essential. And
that can be accomplished only If the,
standards of selection are susceptible
to objective review and adjudication.
Ducking the Issue
In the Alice-in-Wonderland world
of highways and traffic, the customary
device to avoid a decision on a difficult
subject is to turn the whole business
over to a consultant for “study.” And
that appears to be precisely what the
House District Committee has done in
voting to hire a consultant to study
where and whether Washington should
have one-way streets.
Not quite “precisely,” though. For
the question of one-way streets is not
a difficult one. And Lord knows in
Washington it already has been studied
from top to bottom, from one end of
the spectrum to the other.
Only a year or so ago, the most
recent and by all odds the most pro
fessional analysis was completed by the
Downtown Progress organization, re
sulting in a rational, well-detailed pro
posal which could have been put into
effect over a period of years, subject
to detailed scrutiny at each step of
the way. In hearings before the House
District Committee, the plan drew
criticism or questions on several specific
points, but won overwhelming general
indorsement.
What will the new consultant study
show? Well, on the basis of the way
these things' usually work out, that will
depend first of all on what consultant
is chosen. And second of all on what
the House District Committee would like
the study to show in the first place.
Death of a Salesman
i An extraordinary American died
with Eric Allen Johnston, 66, head of
the Motion Picture Association and a
lithe, vocal, perennially youthful man
who seldom had fewer than three major
jobs in Washington.
Four national administrations, from
Roosevelt’s through the present one, felt
free to borrow Mr. Johnston from Holly
wood for a variety of missions ranging
from the political to the cultural. Mr.
Johnston, a liberal Republican with
something of a Horatio Alger back
ground—which he always amusedly dis
avowed—was recognized everywhere as
free enterprise’s most enthusiastic
salesman.
He was also one of its most adroit,
able to wring admiration from some
notoriously stubborn customers. From
President Franklin D. Roosevelt: “My
God, Eric, how did they ever elect you
SATURDAY, AUGUST 24, 1963
president of the United States Chamber
of Commerce?” And, from Nikita Khru
schev: “You’re the Communist, I am
the capitalist.”
A big business man and a humane
one, Mr. Johnston introduced profit
sharing into his many enterprises. And,
as for the movies, whose gracious am
bassador he was for 18 years in Wash
ington, he gave Hollywood a world
wide repute that will make selection
of his successor an extraordinarily diffi
cult job.
Washington can extend him a long,
fond memory for his excellences, his
enthusiasms, and the energy which he
finally exhausted.
Mr. Ball's Mission
Undersecretary of State George Ball
is being sent by the President on a highly
Important mission to Portugal and
Pakistan. The two countries have long
been our allies in defending the cause
of freedom against the ever-present
threat of Communist subversion and
aggression. But in recent months our
Government’s relations with them have
deteriorated to a disquieting, if not
alarming, degree, and Mr. Ball’s task
will be to try to assuage hurt feelings
and make all three of us sympatico
again.
This is something that may be more
easily said than done. In the case of
Portugal one of America’s oldest
friends and a stout ally in the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization—we have
a situation where the Salazar govern
ment and a large body of Portugal’s
public opinion have been deeply offended
by the generally hostile attitude of the
United States toward Portuguese policy
in such places as Angola and Mozam
bique. As one result of this, Lisbon has
not yet formally renewed the agree
ment—which expired last December 31—
under which our country, in connection
with NATO, has access to key air and
naval facilities in the Azores. Mr. Ball,
when he discusses these and related
matters with Premier Salazar, is not
likely to find the going easy.
Similarly, as far as Pakistan is
concerned, Mr. Ball, who is second in
command at the State Department,
probably will have some tough con
versational moments with President
Mohammed Ayub, an Impressively ar
ticulate and opinionated man. Mr.
Ayub's country is a key member not
only of the Southeast Asia Treaty Or
ganization (SEATO), but also of the
Middle Eastern Central Treaty Organi
zation (CENTO). The Pakistani gov
ernment, however, has a low opinion
of Prime Minister Nehru’s India (es
pecially as regards the dispute over
Kashmir), and it resents our military
aid to the Indians. This aid is designed,
of course, to counter the threat of
Chinese Communist aggression, but
Pakistan regards it as so threatful to
itself that Mr. Ayub has begun to flirt
with Red China, even to the point of
working out territorial and air-travel
agreements with it.
Clearly, in both Pakistan and Portu
gal, Mr. Ball has his work cut out for
him. The issues involved are not simple,
and in each case there are factors of
honest national prjde and honest na
tional fear that ought not to be belittled
or lightly brushed aside. We do not
want to lose the friendship of the
Pakistani and Portuguese peoples and
governments. Mr. Ball’s mission is meant
to safeguard against that. Everybody
concerned has reason to wish him
success.
Off-Track Betting
If Mayor Wagner knows his city,
the voters of New York will signify by
referendum November 5 their preference
for legalized off-track horse betting.
Even if the plan falls through, however,
the Mayor has nothing to lose. For the
past five years the Republican-con
trolled State Legislature has blocked
his bid for lawful bookmaking.
This year the plan’s backers are
building their case practically. Both
the city and State have sent scouts to
Europe and New Zealand to report on
off-track systems already in effect, and
it is pretty certain they will send back
glowing reports. For Instance, the
French Government netted S3O million
last year. Britain’s 20,000 booming off
track betting marts had a play of about
$750 million. In New Zealand the bank
like horse parlors now have more busi
ness than the tracks. And it’s going
on in Communist Poland, too.
Even though New York should vote
for a commission to set up a workable
plan, there still would be the legislative
hurdle. However, an expression from
the people may help resolve the nag
ging question of good vs. evil. On the
side of goodness, off-track betting has
at least two recommendations: (1) It
most likely would deal a crippling blow
to illegal bookmaking which, according
to Federal authorities, feeds its nefar
ious gains into the underworld. (2) It
would yield the State and city govern
ments some SIOO million a year, or so
Mayor Wagner believes.
On the debit side is the possibility
that more people who cannot afford it
would find it easier to throw away their
money. But then, there is always away
to do that if one is determined enough.
••• "
-
■sl Fm ..
x /f Mill
*till I -w,
M fl
No Time to Waste
LETTERS TO THE ST AR
Dealing With Reds
The Russians have the most
deplorable record in all his
tory for the violation of sol
emn treaties. It is the policy
of the Communists to promise
anything and to perform
nothing unless it serves their
immediate ends.
Today, under the slogans of
"Peaceful Co-existence” and
“Negotiation,” we are wit
nessing the most dangerous
Communist offensive of our
time.
The Czechs and Hungarians
found that co-existence with
communism is like getting
into a cage with a hungry
lion: after the lion has eaten
the man, they lie down and
co-exist in peace. Peaceful
co-existence means Commu
nist conquest without war. In
his February, 1956 report to
the 20th Congress, Khrush
chev asserted in Aesopian
language that peaceful co
existence would lead to the
victory of world communism.
On April 1,1951, the House
Un-American Activities Com
mittee issued a report called,
"The Communist Peace Of
fensive: a Campaign to Dis
arm and Defeat the United
States.” This document
showed in detail how intel
lectuals, professors, writers
and others who Influence pub
lic opinion, were sucked into
various Communist peace
fronts. This report said: “The
most dangerous hoax ever de
vised by the international
Communist conspiracy is the
current world - wide ‘peace’
offensive.”
Even to think of co-exist
ence with the Communists is
preposterous. As Lenin said,
"There can be no permanent
co-existence between Commu
nist and non-Communist. The
latter must be liquidated by
force if necessary.”
The Communists aim to
keep us complacent until the
choice is annihilation or sur
render. at which time they
confidently expect us to sub
mit to a negotiated surrender.
James A. Weyer.
Columbus, Ohio.
«t • •
There is no real safeguard
in the proposed test ban
treaty. The ban on nuclear
testing is part of the Russian
trategy for disarming West
ern nations.
United States superiority
in all kinds of nuclear
weapons and their various
delivery systems is the only
effective deterrent to Soviet
aggression.
On October 31, 1958, Presi
dent Eisenhower unilaterally
halted U. S. nuclear testing.
During 1959 and 1960 the
U. S. continued to refrain
from testing. President Ken
nedy continued the mora
torium until September 5,
1961. During all of this time
the Russians were preparing
for a massive series of tests,
which started September 1,
1961.
During our unilateral test
ing ban of about three years
the Russians made significant
gains in nuclear capabilities
and weapons refinement. Ac
cording to the reports of our
own nuclear specialists, like
Dr. Edward Teller, the Rus
sians now have an adequate
missile defense system and
are apparently well along in
the development of a clean
nuclear bomb with no radia
tion fallout. Therefore, wish
ing to keep this advantage
the Russians are willing to
sign a treaty which will have
the effect of stopping all ad
vances and improvements by
the U. 8.
The Russians only respect
strength, and only by main
taining U. 8. superiority can
we remain an independent
and sovereign nation.
The overriding reason why
the Senate should not ratify
the proposed test ban treaty
is because we cannot trust
the Communist Russians who
have broken 50 out of 53
treaties and/or agreements
during the past 30 years, and
because the international
Communist conspiracy, with
headquarters in Moscow, has
not abandoned its plans for
the conquest of the world.
Kent Courtney*
National Chairman, the
Conservative Society of
America.
Pen names may be used if
letters carry writers’ correct
names and addresses. All let
ters are subject to condensa
tion. Those not used will be
returned only when accom
panied by self - addressed,
stamped envelopes.
Women's Rights
I was shocked to read that
A'. Philip Randolph, veteran
labor leader and acknowl
edged leader of the March
on Washington for Jobs and
Freedom, has accepted an in
vitation to speak at a lunch
eon of the National Press
Club on August 26 and that
nine other members of the
march committee including
Dr. Martin Luther King have
been invited to sit on the
platform with him. Surely
Mr. Randolph is aware of
the notorious policy of segre
gation and discrimination
against qualified newspaper
women practiced by the Na
tional Press Club. Not only
are women excluded from
membership; they are per
mitted to attend only by
sitting in the balcony.
As one who has been a
victim of both "Jim Crow”
and “Jane Crow,” I can give
expert testimony that both
discrimination solely because
of race and discrimination
solely because of sex are
equally insulting and do vio
lence to the human spirit.
It is as humiliating for a
woman reporter assigned to
cover Mr. Randolph’s speech
to be sent to the balcony as
it would be for Mr. Randolph
to be sent to the back of the
bus.
The great strength of the
battle of those of us who are
Negroes in the United States
has been our universal ap
peal for the rights of man
kind. At this crucial moment
in our struggle, Mr. Ran
dolph’s acceptance to speak
before a professional organi
zation which ignores and ex
cludes half of the population
(including half of the Negro
population) can only be con
strued as a sign that Mr.
Randolph and company are
concerned with the rights of
Negro men only and not with
the rights of all people.
It seems appropriate to
call attention to the fact
that in 1840 William Lloyd
Garrison and Charles Re
mond, the latter a Negro, re
fused to be seated as dele
gates to the World Anti-
Slavery Convention in Lon
don when they learned that
the women members of the
American delegation would
be excluded and could sit
only in the balcony. Cer
tainly we have a right to ex
pect nothing less from men
like A. Philip Randolph who
act as spokesmen for human
rights in the twentieth cen
tury.
Pauli Murray,
Senior Fellow, Yale Law
School, New Haven, Conn.
Minute of Silence
In the past few months,
many people have referred
to the Supreme Court’s de
cision on the Lord's Prayer
in schools as the will of the
minority forced upon the
malority. Yet. to date, I have
not seen one statistic to sup- ’
port this accusation.
On the contrary, Mont
gomery Blair High School in
Silver Spring, Maryland,
polled the entire student
body last March on many
facets of school life. One
question asked students to
check the items they wanted
Included in homeroom period.
Os the 2,200 students polled,
only 37% checked "Lord’s
Prayer”. On the other hand
63% checked "One minute of
silence”.
It appears to me, in light
of this survey, that to recite
the Lord’s Prayer each day
forces the will of the minority
upon the majority. However,
one minute of silence would
probably be better. I do not
think that God would be
ofended if he receives the
prayer an individual student
chooses to offer silently, nor
would 63% of my fellow stu
dents be offended by a prayer
contrary to their own faith.
Henry Allen Cohn
Power of the Court
Lester M. Kimble (Star.
Aug. 20) made a persuasive
and moral effort to defend
the Supreme Court's decision
in the Tennessee reappor
tionment case. He said the
State had failed to carry out
its constitutional mandate to
reapportion, and that its fail
ure to do so could ultimately
lead to a dictatorial type of
government. The Supreme
Court being opposed to dic
tatorships, kindly intervened.
The object of Mr. Kimble’s
letter and his reasoning be
hind it are quite inconsistent.
The Supreme Court is an
appointive body, with a life
time reign. The Tennessee
legislature is an elected body
subject to approval by the
people through the ballot box.
Thus the latter is subject to
the will of the people while
the former is not. The gov
ernors of 49 States have the
veto power (North Carolina
does not) and are elected by
a majority of the voters.
Should a dictatorial-minded
legislature, if one could ex
ist, pass oppressive legislation
then the governor could eas
ily veto the bill. The real
question is not whether it is
morally right for one vote
to be equal to 20. This on the
face of it is quite wrong, but
would Mr. Kimble have the
Supreme Court prohibit
Detroit from determining the
electoral college vote for the
whole State of Michigan?
This may be wrong, too, but
both actions are constitu
tional.
Article Four. Section Four,
of the Constitution guaran
tees to the States a repub
lican form of government.
This section had kept the
Supreme Court from inter
fering with matters of State
government for more than a
century. Since the Baker vs.
Carr decision, the Supreme
Court has thrown the doors
wide for its intervention into
matters solely concerning the
citizens and their political
make-up within a State. The
issue involved in the case
concerned the procedure in
which a State legislature
could establish the basis for
its own representation. The
fact that the State considers
historical and geographical
as well as numerical reasons
as a basis for its representa
tion was in the view of the
court a denial of the equal
protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. This
in essence is saying that the
Supreme Court, not the State
Legislature, is a better judge
in the determination of leg
islative representation.
Until the States ratified
the Constitution, there was
no Supreme Court. The
States created the Constitu
tion and the Constitution
created tne Supreme Court.
Thus the States it would
seem are the parents, the
Supreme Court the child. If
today the Supreme Court can
divide the States of Tennes
see. Georgia, Maryland and
Michigan according to its
views, tomorrow it may reap
portion the Nation. If it can
pronounce the States incom
petent to deal with this
problem, tomorrow it may
pronounce the Staes incom
petent to deal with State
taxes, schools, highways and
courts of law. The trend is
well under way.
Dictatorial powers are not
being accumulated by an
elected Legislature in some
far away State, but rather
in nine political appointees
answerable to no one. subject
to no one and who can ban
the Lord’s Prkyer in 50
States, affecting 180 million
people with a stroke of the
pen. Ted S. Douglas.
A4oon Madness
Forty billion dollars to ex
plore the moon!
Why, that is forty thousand
million dollars; and there
goes everything that the
mind can visualize, to the
moon! Are all Americans
completely insane? Os course
such "project” can and must
be stopped by any means
necessary, but quickly, and
nothing, and nobody, should
be allowed to stand in the
way of its sudden and com
plete death. This is not sci
ence, it is Insanity—criminal
insanity. B. W. Williams
THE POLITICAL MILL
By GOULD LINCOLN
Goldwater in '63; Borah in 'l9
Any idea that the nuclear
test ban treaty will be rushed
through the Senate or rati
fied after a relatively brief
debate appears to have gone
out the window. The Senate
may have a long struggle
over the pact—d esp 11 e the
enthusiasm, both public and
official, with which the ne
gotiation and signing of the
treaty was hailed- The issue
of national security—should
the treaty be ratified as it
stands—has raised its head
sharply as testimony of mili
tary and scientific experts
before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, with
members of the Armed Serv
ices Committee and the Joint
Atomic Energy Committee
sitting, has proceeded.
Back in 1919, when Presi
dent Woodrow Wilson sub
mitted the League of Nations
Covenant to the Senate, after
the close of World War I, it
appeared at first blush it
would be ratified by the Sen
ate, along with the Versailles
Treaty, by a considerable
vote. Peace was popular then,
as it is today. But a group of
Republican and Democratic
Senators turned their guns
on the covenant in the Sen
ate debate, claiming that Ar
ticle 10 committed this coun
try to go to war in defense of
any of the signatories if they
were attacked—that our in
dependence of action would
be destroyed. The treaty
foundered on the rock of
“reservations.” The danger,
if there is a danger, to the
test-ban treaty, may lie in
the same direction, not
merely because of opposition
by President Kennedy, but
because, as the administra
tion sources have said, any
such changes might cause
the Russian Soviet govern
ment to retreat from its pre
sent agreement.
Republican From West
In 1919, among the un
yielding opponents of the
League Covenant was a
Republican Senator from a
Western State (Idaho)—Wil
liam E. Borah, an indepen
dent always. Today, another
Republican Senator, Barry
Goldwater of Arizona, as in
dependent in his way as was
Senator Borah, is still to be
convinced that he should
vote for the test-ban treaty—
or oppose it. He has voiced
grave doubts about the trea
ty. on the ground that it
might tie our hands in build
ing our national defense. As
he put it s uccinctly to this
writer: "Unless I am per
suaded that the political
gains from this treaty more
than offset possible losses, in
military terms, to our nation-
PEOPLE AND PROBLEMS
By RALPH McGILL
An Ex-GI Returns From Red China
Lowell Skinner by now has
been absorbed Into the
anonymity of his parents’
home and community in
Ohio. Behind him are 10
years spent in Communist
China. He was an American
soldier and prisoner of war
In Korea, who, by free will,
renounced his country In
1954 and chose China. His
Chinese wife, seml-paralyzed
by a tubercular brain Infec
tion, was not well enough to
come home with him when
Lowell Skinner abandoned
Chinese communism and, dis
illusioned, returned home. His
country received him—United
States citizenship is not with
out resiliency.
Skinner was one of 21 who
“stayed.” Nine remain. One
has moved from Communist
China to Communist Poland.
Five work In factories. Three
have office Jobs. Skinner says
two more are "about to come
home.” The fact Is that Com
munist China has no further
use for them. Their useful
ness ended when they, as
American soldiers, publicly,
before television and news
reel cameras, denounced and
renounced their native land
and climbed Into trucks to
begin their journey to China.
The propaganda value, at
that moment, was important
to the Chinese.
Reasons for Returning
Skinner says lack of Indi
vidual freedom in China was
the dominant reason for his
decision to reverse his choice
of 10 years ago. But, he says,
It was more than that. A
man can learn a lot In 10
years lncluding the most
difficult of all things, a
knowledge of self.
An excellent research Job
was done and published, “21
Who Stayed,” by an able re
porter, Virginia Pasley. Os the
21 young Americans who dra
matically chose Chinese com
munism, all but one were
brought up In typical
United States towns and ru
ral communities. What edu
cation they had was in local
schools. Os the 21. three were
Negroes, the rest white. Six
teen were Protestants of var
ious denominations. Four were
Roman Catholics, one a Oreek
Catholic. None was a Jew.
All but one were native born.
The Pasley research re
vealed that Skinner was re
membered by neighbors as
a boy who never smiled. He
was the apple of his mother’s
eye. His father, a plasterer,
was a veteran of the first
World War. The parents did
al defense, I don’t see how I
can vote to ratify. I am still
keeping an open mind.”
Much may depend upon
Senator Goldwater’s decision.
He has been and still is re
garded as the leading candl
date, though unannounced,
for the Republican presiden
tial nomination next year.
Gov. Rockefeller of New
York, who has been doing his
best to sink Senator Goldwa
ter’s chances of nomination,
has declared for ratification
of the test-ban treaty—even
before the hearings on the
treaty began. He coupled
with his support of the trea
ty, however, a considerable
list of mental reservations,
not unlike those which have
been expressed by Senator
Goldwater and some of the
witnesses before the Senate
Foreign Relations Commit
tee. /
Policy Not Dissimilar
Should Senator Goldwater
vote against ratification of
the treaty, or for crippling
in the eyes of the Kennedy
administration—reservations,
where would it leave him
politically? The Arizona Sen
ator is not one to let personal
political gain outrun his
determination to keep the
United States safe in this
atomic age, any more than
was Senator Borah in his
day, long before nuclear
weapons had been developed.
Senator Borah often was
importuned to run for a
presidential nomination. He
never did, until 1936, when
he made the race "to give
Republicans an opportunity
to vote for a progressive." He
was 71 years old at the time,
and had been an outstanding
member of the Senate for 31
years. Senator Goldwater, 54
•years old and a Senator 10
years, has caught the imag
ination of moderate and con
servative Republicans, of in
dependents and some Demo
crats. It is their hope to vote
for a conservative, and for
Senator Goldwater. He has
never said he would be a
candidate for the Presidency.
Like Senator Borah, he has
discounted chances of a can
didate for the Presidency
from a State with a few
votes in the Electoral College.
But his grass roots support
in many States is great.
If Senator Goldwater
decides to oppose the test
ban treaty, he will be in the
forefront of the battle. Many
Senators have become con
fused by the strongly oppos
ing testimony given before
the Foreign Relations Com
mittee, and it is still impossi
ble to reckon closely the ulti
mate vote.
everything they could for
their children.
In school Lowell Skinner’s
1. was average, his work
"good.” The only teacher who
remembered him called him
a “poker face” the child
who never smiled. He was
never chosen by the other
children to do anything—and
he didn’t care if they didn’t.
He was a “loner.”
Young Skinner entered
high school. He attended 54
days. He became a “drop-out.”
He said it was too hard for
him. He did odd jobs, pre
ferably something to do with
tools or machines. He was IB
when he enlisted, on August
16, 1949. He had to eat ba
nanas to attain the necessary
weight. He was with the First
Cavalry Division which went
to Japan. When the Korean
war began in June, 1950, the
division was rushed to Korea.
On July 18 Skinner’s division
was in combat. On November
2, he was one of several hun
dred captured .
Some of his fellow prison
ers were surprised when, on
January 24, 1954, Skinner
Joined those who were refus
ing exchange and determined
to go to China “to fight for
peace.” To some, Skinner
seemed “afraid of something.”
This, in brief, is the back
ground. Skinner is now 32
years old.
Empty Promises
In China he found he did
not have, as promised, op
portunity to travel or go to
school. He operated a lathe
in a paper factory. He earned
189 yuan per month (about
$77.). He developed an ulcer
because of "too. much work,
bad food and nervous exhaus
tion.” His weight dropped
from 133 pounds to 118. At
the time of the 1958 "Great
Leap Forward," Skinner says
the work once reached 21
hours. A decline in the work
er's health produced a reduc
tion in hours. When he left
he was working a six-day,
eight-hour shift. On the as
set side are acquisition of
the language, learned the
hard way, and some knowl
edge of the country and cus
toms. Today, he says, there
is more hatred of Russians
in China than of Americans.
Those Americans who prate
about lost freedoms might
study Lowell Skinner's story
—and conclusions. Americans
of course, have lost no free
doms. Not a single freedom
has been reduced, much less
lost.
(AU rt«hU