Evening star., 1959-06-29
Strauss Cose

In all Its essentials, there is
no limit to the future of the
American people" (Taft Me-
morial.)
The converse is equally
true-if the essentials of lib
erty In any particular are de.
stroyed or abandoned, or, in
the most likely case, allowed
to be eroded or Clipped
away, then our future as q
free country has been lin
tied.
The Strauss case Is a point
ed and painful instance Of
the loss OF essentials Of lib
erty.
Senator Byrd Of Virginia,
one Of the leaders In the
fight for confirmation, said
on the Senate floor: ITO give
the President latitude In
choosing his own cabinet Is
not in conflict with either the
constitutional requirement
for Senate confirmation or
the checks and balances the
ory. On the contrary, 1t is
traditional in our form Of
constitutional democracy. It
Is In the interest Of efiicient
administration by the Chief
Executive. 1t is in the inter-
est Of fixing responsibility on
the President as head Of the
party in power"
What, then. is the result
OF curtailing this wide lati-
tude which the President
needs in choosing his own
cabinet? It Is precisely, that
the bulwark Of The Constitu-
tion, the checks and balances,
the separation of powers, has
been whitfield down.
The historic precedent that
has been made reduces the
liberty Of the President, as
head OF government and par
ty leader. In appointing his
principal advisers. It also In
nuences the freedom and dis.
cretion Of high officials in
their ofiicial actions and in
their dealings with the Con-
gress Gin the event they en-.
tertain ambitions for ap-
pointment to cabinet posts
or. indeed, other high posi-
tons requiring Senate con-
drmation).
And what about future
confirmation contests? WIN
the Strauss case be but A
prelude to further effort at
control?
There Is no appeal except
TO the love Of liberty of fu.
ture generations.
May the writer's and histo-
rians not bury the Strauss
easel Let them use 1t as a
bench mark, q low water
mark, beyond which, like Yer
dun. we shall not pass.
Jackson Lee Davis.
To sum up the pros and
cons Of the Strauss vote, will
some of these good citizens
that stand so ready to con-
denim our Senators please ex-
plain Just why we elect these
men to Office II they are not
to help decide the viii Of the
people?
This is a time when politi-
cal pickering should be for
gotten. A time when the
spirit Of mems hearts is being
tried. Should we stick TO-
gether or divided fall? Or Is
1t a time when we should
send our Senators and Con-
greSsmen home to serve their
States. or let them sit in the
Capitol as totem poles?
Iris Marsh.
\ y
Indignation compels me tt
voice my opinion of the
Strauss deal. Here we have Q
man of character and stand
ing and eminently well quail
fed for the position. being
rejected on very shakS
grounds, in fact, no grounds
at all. The reasons advanced
for the rejection are child
like and puerile. Most Of the
charges we're never actually
proved. Mr.. Strauss only sir
is that he is outspoken ant
anti-Communist.
We might take a good lool
at some Of Mr.. Strauss op.
ponents. A local newspaper
showed Senators Morse, An.
derson and others, smiling II
glee and congratulating eacf
other at the Senate rejection
Of Mr.. Strauss. 1t would bt
better for the country 1
Senator Morse would go bacl
to Oregon where he belongs
He originally came here OF
Republican votes and thei
repudiated the party which
put him In.
A television view Of Sena