Page 4


‘Individualism Is Only Part of Our Heritage’ Sir: It is disgusting to see the liberties taken by such organizations as the Texas Bureau for Economic Understanding in the area of the social sciences. When dealing in mathematics, chemistry, physics, or any of the other material or natural sciences, accuracy is demanded, but not so in the realm of human affairs. Any vested interest seems able, through control of communication media, to capture a vast audience. Of course the reactionary element is necessary in the “free market place of ideas” to moderate the left wing; however, let us not be so gullible as to believe that T.B. E. U. and its teacher “training” is Americanism. The United States was born in revolution and has progressed through social and economic evolution. American civilization is a product of change, not formalized, spread-eagle dogma which can be seen in previous cultures as the death-knell of mobility, progress, and enlightenment. These “Americans” of T.B.E.U. call themselves Jeffersonians. Let us investigate \(apparently they have not done political philosophy. As any average student of U. S. history can testify, Jefferson took office in 1801 espousing limited government, reduction of armed forces, state rights, and an agrarian-oriented economy. Being one of the most principled and erudite of American statesmen, he soon found that national problems call for national, concerted action. It was during the Jeffersonian period that the constitution was stretched to provide for the purchase of Louisiana; the National Bank was allowed to continue; the Embargo was passed. Right-wing Jeffersonians cried in anger that their leader had abandoned his initial goal of decentralization. T.B.E.U. forgets the period of the Confederation when jealous, competitive states made national government next to impossible. Also forgotten is the raison d’etre of the present U. S. Constitution necessity for strengthening the central government. A study of the type of individualism peddled by T.B.E.U. will reveal that is has been the “rugged individual” who has succumbed to the exigencies of modern economics. Most important of all, T.B.E.U. displays a gross ignorance of the relation of economic and social circumstances to the processes of government necessary to affect the goal of American societythe protection, welfare, and opportunity of the citizen. Jeffersonian Democracy, for a short time, worked or was at least utilized. When Americans lived in the frontier element, removed from the seats of government and from one another, localism was forced upon them. An open expanse of land allowed us to turn from social problems and rely on the “escape valve” of western migration to rid communities \(there is dispute on dissidents. This is no longer possible. Even during the early frontier days cooperation was necessary. Cabin-raisings, militia drills, farm and social organizations, and camp meetings testify to the fact that individualism is only part of our heritage. We live today in an entirely different world than did the original Jeffersonians. Industrialism, urbanism, suburbanism, international leadership, depletion of natural resources, and scores of other problems face us. Many of these difficulties were unknown to early 19th Century Americans. In the 20th Century passive government is not liberal as it was when the trend away from mercantilism was championed by Adam Smith. Today, when political liberty de pends upon economic opportunity, when economic organization has eliminated the socially responsible individual craftsmen, weak passive government is nothing but a subsidy to the economically powerful elements in society which so profoundly affect the every-day life of all Americans. The crusade carried on by the T. B. E. U., to be truly American, should be concerned with careful study of existing problems in housing, education, natural resources, and the U. S. world position. These investigations should be carried on by students of reputation rather than by businessmen who have a few platitudes to dispense. The crusade should not call for less activity by a democratically controlled government, but should recommend better attention to the needs of the electorate. A society based on what the T. B. E. U. calls Americanism would, I suppose, be one without the federal income tax, FTC, ICC, FCC, REA, Pure Food and Drug and so on. We might return to the “good old days” when -the Supreme Court enacted by decision the social Darwinian theory of “root, hog, or die” in accordance with “right of contract” and “due process.” Envision the United States in the 20th Century constituted politically as it was before the Hamiltonian means of centralization was geared to the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian ends of a capable, potentially intelligent, sovereign majority. This picture should convince even the most deluded that the T.B.E.U. cannot as much as defin4 Americanism. T.B.E.U. evidently has little faith in the ability of the American people to select those national representatives who are instructed to perform as statesmen in the interest of the United States rather than as feudal delegates, speaking for a particular manor. It would be interesting to see Mr. Jefferson’s reaction to the West Texas teacher “training” program. I dare say he would today be astonished to view his salient quality, flexibility, prostituted by T. B. E. U. and the “educators” who support it. Robert W. Shook, 1806 Travis St., Victoria. Salutary Hot-Housing Sir: Ever since I heard Mr. Truman speak in Dallas last year, I have been concerned about what constituted “hot house liberals.” Apparently we now have our answer, for some of them must have been in attendance at the party Tom Sutherland went to in Dalknew which ones they were. Both and Mr. Sutherland’s a r ti c 1 e should have a salutary effect in Democratic circles in Texas. David R. Richards, Attorney, 1610 National Bankers Life Bldg., Commerce & Ervay, Dallas. Tripe Sir: Mr. Charles Ramsdell will be hired away from you muy pronto by the Dallas News. His hackneyed. expressions a bout Mexicans and Mexico will make big press boys. I am going to have to eat some of my words–I told a large number of people that you did not print such tripe as “The Lucky Cow of Tututepec.” We get from the other papers, movies, and TV. Please do not add to it. Let Mr. Ramsdell gowhen he gets that offer. John R. Landin, 1715 Alaska, Dallas. Sales Tax Twins Sir: Well, I see that the “Gold Dust Twins” of sales taxism are in action. Ben Ramsey has announced for lieutenant governor wants to be Czar over the Texas State Senate and try to force through his cute little general sales tax that his packed tax study committee is sure to bring in … The other twin, Waggoner Carr, is out for attorney general. John R. Covey, Sr., Rt. 2, Box 277, Snyder. Faith from Foreign State Sir: It is reassuring to read of the support given by Kenneth Carey for the separation of church and state, but I wonder if he isn’t assuming too much for his fellow churchmen. Firstly, he is right when he says that “a group in our society may support any proposal they wish,” but when most religious groups have moral reasons to support a law they arrive at these reasons in a democratic manner and independent of any foreign body. Catholics do not have these privileges; their morals are set for them by a foreign state, and Protestants feel uneasy about this situation. Secondly, Mr. Carey says that Catholics have to conform only in faith and morals. This is true, but they have never to my knowledge defined this term. Catholics have no constitution to protect them from the Church, as we have to protect us from the State. Their concept of “faith and morals” is like my grandmother’s taffyit can stretch all over the place, depending on how powerful the Church is. Thirdly, Mr. Carey rightly says that the Catholic Church was way ahead of most everyone on integration, but not for just the reasons that he gives. One strong reason was that the Church could not support two separate school systems where there were few Negro Catholics. In areas such as New Orleans where there are many Negro Catholics there has been no integration, much to the sorrow of their liberal minded Archbishop. I furthermore doubt if the average Catholic is any more tolerant than the average Protestant. Because I differ with ‘Mr. Carey on these points doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to a Catholic president, because I believe that a AUSTIN After we published “Gary’s 1 Dialogues” last November I received an indignant letter from a poll tax nemesis demanding equal time for her three children unless we gave some space to the poll tax question, and frightened by what fair play might lead to, I took my place at the poll tax drums. In this manner perhaps I have set up a din beneath which again can be heard the silently working mind of my seven-yearold boy. One evening during the holidays he sat beside me under a lamp; he was very grave-faced, his lips in a pout from his concern, his young brow furrowing, and said, Daddy, if there was a war, would I have to go? Well … yes. I don’t think I’d go. I would sneak away. No, you wouldn’t. Well, wouldn’t you? No … If I had thought the war was necessary, I would have gone. Otherwise there are other things you can do. You can carry stretchers for the hurt, for example. But they can kill you then, too? Yes. Catholic should be able to be president. Sen. Kennedy might make an excellent president, but I would want to be convinced that he really thinks for himself on matters of faith and morals. Don Norton, 323 Timberlane, San Antonio 9. Catholic Doctrines Sir: …. Consider part of Mr. olics owe no allegiance outside the United States, if we are speaking of man and his laws. I doubt that this differs from the Protestant position. Catholic faith and morals, the only area in which the church asks conformity, have no bearing in this fake issue.” The strongest point to be made here is that the Catholic Church does require conformity of Catholics on matters it considers its province. If a Catholic considers himself bound by Canon law and the dictates of the Church officials then there are a number of things he cannot decide for himself. Mr. Carey states that if we are speaking of man and his laws, then the Catholic owes no allegiance outside the United States. This is not true. Canon law 1094 declares the marriage of Catholics by American officials entirely invalid. Which does the Catholic accept, American law or Canon law in this case? Canon law 1118 makes it compulsory for every Catholic legislator in the United States to oppose liberalizing divorce laws. There is the situation in that what the Catholic Church considers its province may extend beyond “faith and morals,” as I see it. For example, I will quote here from the Manual of Christian Doctrine of the Catholic teaching order, the Brothers of the Christian Schools, published in Philadelphia in 1926 with the Imprimatur of Cardinal Dougherty \(1949 “Why is the Church superior to the State? “Because the end to which the Church tends is the noblest of all ends … “What right has the Pope in virtue of this supremacy? “The right to annul those laws or acts of government that would injure the salvation of souls or attack the natural rights of citizens. “What then is the principal obligation of heads of States? “The principal obligation is to practice the Catholic religion themselves, and, as they are in power, to protect and defend it … “When may the state tolerate dissenting worships? I wouldn’t go. I would sneak away. They would put you in jail. I would rather be in jail than in the war. Wouldn’t you? I don’t know. It would depend on the war. At least they’d feed you, and everything. If it was a necessary war, to defend a way of life you believed in, you should go. If not, you shouldn’t; it would be better to be in jail than to go. But whatever you did, you should do because you believed in it; not because you were afraid. I think. Urn-hum. I sure hope there won’t be any more wars. I would have to go, if I was a grown-up, wouldn’t I? Yes. I sure am glad I’m a little boy. So am’ I. \(I stopped the talk at this point. After a while he came and sat Why are you thinking so much about war? I don’t know. I just am. Sometimes I dream about war. What do you dream? Oh, once I dreamed I was the “When these worships have acquired a sort of legal existence consecrated by time and accorded by treaties or covenants. “May the state separate itself from the Church? “No, because it may not withdraw from the supreme rule of Christ …. “On what conditions are civil laws binding? it . . . That the legislating power has no law contrary to natural law, or to positive divine law; otherwise a civil law is entirely null, and should not be observed.” This work is a standard manual for training American Catholic high-school students in the fundamentals of the Catholic faith. Here we see the idea that the Vatican has the right to annul the laws of the U.S., that the principal obligation of the president is to uphold the Catholic religion, that the Church and State should not be separate, and that civil law is subordinate to Church law. B. A. Younglove, 205 West 32nd, Austin. AT&T Downed Again Sir: I commiserate with Arden McNab’s telephone bell troubles. I, too, had a new baby, and even worse than waking me, the phone woke the baby. My phone, too, was an old-fashioned black kind, no control. I solved my problem even more