To anyone who hasn’t heard about the effective- ness of our controversial Pennsylvania insurance commissioner, he just saved us nearly $1.4 million with the stroke of a pen. Actually, Dr. Herbert Denenberg has saved policyholders much more'over the long run since his appointment to the top state insurance post, but probably never has he saved us money with so much ease. major insurance companies in the state asking them to submit proposals for new premium rates for auto and homeowners insurance. At that time Dr. Denenberg said that the “companies always act quickly when they want rate increases, but move more slowly when it’s time to lower rates. There’s a need now to re-evaluate rates and deter- mine where changes are necessary.’’ As a result of Dr. Denenberg’s letter, total pre- -mium reductions to date amount to a whopping $3 million. In the Case of the Erie Insurance Exchange, for example five percent reduction in premiums to drivers 55 years of age and older, and physical damage rates for all cars six years or older, saved policyholders affected almost $782,000 a year. In another case, the American General Group, consisting of four insurance companies, lowered its homeowners insurance premiums by an overall rate of 11.4 percent. Likewise, policyholders with four companies in the American General Group were saved an estimated $353,000. United States Fi- delity and Guaranty policyholders were granted an overall reduction on homeowners policies of 6.6 percent, or about $175,000. Since his appointment in 1971, Dr. Denenberg has not granted a single rate hike in insurance pre- miums until recently, quite a feat compared to the inflationary spiral of most other commodities. Most importantly, perhaps, is the fact that Dr. Denenberg has set an example for other state in- surance offices which are usually nothing more than the protectorates of the insurance industry. Through his Pennsylvania efforts, his influence is being felt nationally, principally because of the motto by which he lives: “Populus Iamdudum De- futatus Est” (The Consumer Has Been Screwed - Long Enough). Slender Thread It is remarkable how Thanksgiving traditions have survived relatively unscathed in these crazy, plastic-fantastic United States. For some unknown reason, Thanksgiving means essentially the same thing, calls forth the same images, that it did 10, 50, we know of has yet tried to market a synthetic tur- key. (Although, if food prices, continue to climb, we may find ourselves eating soybeans next Turkey Day.) : The Thanksgiving spirit seems to embody every- thing that we would like American life to be, every- thing that we imagine it was in the ‘‘good old -days’’—whenever they were. There is a sense of warmth, of family solidarity, of joining together to work toward a common goal. In its own quiet way, Thanksgiving is a patriotic holiday, too—a patriotic holiday which has somehow managed to retain far more meaning among the masses than July 4, which is far more improtant in the historical scheme of things. Some sociologists say that the fundamental nuclear family is dead. And Alvin Toffler, author of Future Shock, forecasts doom and gloom as a re- sult of our constantly changing lifestyle responsible for the demise of the family. It would seem then, that if families are the cornerstone of a stable society, and that they are on the way out, we are in- deed in trouble. One occasion each year, however, leads at least some of us, to believe that we are clinging to what is left of the old ways by a slender thread. The spirit of Thanksgiving, that good will, closeness and strength which manifest themselves so rarely throughout the rest of the year, is reason enough to hope that we might make it after all. Capitol Notes by William Ecenbarger It is possible, if not probable, that a ma- jority of Pennsylvania citizens favor reducing the memberships of the state House and Senate; indeed, considerable sentiment can be found for eliminating one of the bodies and setting up a unicameral legislature. Regardless of the depth of these desires, they have been and will continue to be frus- trated by a single fact of life: The changes can only be accomplished by a constitutional amendment, and only the Legislature can be- gin the process of amending the Constitution. The deck is decisively stacked in Penn- sylvania against reducing the size of the Le- gislature—for whatever their other aberra- tions, members of the Pennsylvania General clination toward suicide. It doesn’t have to be this way, and as a matter of fact it isn’t this way in 15 other states where voters have the power to initiate changes in their Constitutions. This power of initiative is contrary to the principle of representative government. It is a symbol of the disillusionment with repre- sentative government that swept the nation in the form of the so-called Progressive move- ment during the early 20th Century. The procedures in initiative states vary in detail, but the common thread is that in- terested citizens can get a constitutional question on the ballot by gathering a desig- nated number of signitures (usually a percen- tage of votes cast in the last statewide elec- tion) on a petition. Among the issues that have been decided by voters of initiative states in this manner are public pension plans, anti-vivesection, compulsory vaccination, Bible reading in public schools, ‘‘right-to-work” laws and le- gislative reapportionment. Gov. Ronald Reagan of California used the initiative power to bypass a hostile Legis- lature and go directly to the people with his plan to place a limit on future state taxes. It was rejected Nov. 6. Opponents of popular initiative argue that it opens the door for dangerous crackpot pro- posals and can lead to the destruction of rep- resentative government. / TRB from Washington They do this Royalty thing very well in England and we watched the Princess’s fairy- tale wedding last week with double interest. There is a deep, suppressed yearning among . Americans to make the President a kind of monarch, somebody you can bow down to, somebody who symbolizes all the proper and correct sentiments, somebody who sets the right shoulder style on men’s suits, somebody whose role matches the awe and reverence in the eyes of eager people when they tell reporters, “You mustn’t attack the - capital letters - PRESIDENCY”. Mr. Nixon senses that feeling. He loves big state dinners and pomp circumstance. There are stairs to descend and uniformed trumpet- ers who go, Tara! Tara! He rigged up the White House guards in trappings of royalty in 1970 with white coats, black belts, gold tassels and hats with visors right out of The Prisoner of Zenda. Everybody laughed in embarrassment, but were they laughing at him or at the revelation of their own secret suppressed desire? In Canada and England they separate the ceremonial and the political functions, whereas in our President we roll the two into one. There is only a single red-coated guard in front of Pierre Trudeau's modest official residence in Ottawa. So long as he is Prime Minister he gets the use of a summer place, too, a 5-bedroom, Victorian style cottage. That would never befit the dignity of a President, one who has Camp David, guarded Clemente, Key Biscayne and so on, owned by spent some $10 million. In Canada, the ceremonial side is carried . It is true that a number of irresponsible salary and pension proposals have been placed on the ballot in initiative states—but it 1s equally true that almost without exception they have been voted down. Studies by political scientists of the initia- tive power in California, Colorado, Michi- gan, Oregon and Washington have concluded that the citizenry has showed commendable restraint in its use. In Pennsylvania legislature reform is only the most obvious form of constitutional power. Harrisburg lobbies often pervert rep- resentative government by blocking proposed changes in the Legislature. For example, an important public issue is whether revenues from gasoline taxes and highway user fees can be used to finance mass transit facilities. Right now the state Constitution says they can only be used to A Greenstreet News Co. Publication ought to be allowed to say whether they’d like to change that provision. However, attempts to get such a question before the electorate have been bottled up re- atedly in the legislative procesi by the ighway lobby. Lh 4 ; There is, of course, a Catch 227aspect of giving the people of Pennsylvania initiative powers. It would require a constitutional amendment—and only the legislature can make a constitutional amendment. on by the Governor General. Mr. Trudeau is just a politician. If he wants to travel by plane he can’t order Air Force One to warm up as Commander-in-Chief; he must put in a formal requistion for it, or else travel commercial. We watched the Royal pumpkin coach in the wedding in London last week and won- dered if we couldn’t manage something of that sort here. What a thrill it gives everybody. It would be a lot cheaper than our present arrangement. Prime Minister Heath has salary and allowance of about $75,000. In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau’s recom- pense is $25,000 as prime minister, $18,000 as member of parliament, $8,000 on an expense account and $4,000 incidentals (pocket money, maybe.) It comes to around $55,000. Well now, contrast our President. He gets a salary of $200,000 to begin with, and $50,000 expense allowance. He has a fund for ‘“‘special projects’’ of $1,500,000 over which Presidents traditionally exercise great discretion. By a shrewd application of tax law Mr. Nixon gave his personal papers to the National Archives in 1969 and had them appraised at a whopping $570,000 against which he can now draw a $100,000 a year tax deduction for donations. Tax lawyers studying this and other permiss- ible deductions figure that Mr. Nixon pays a federal income tax of around $14,500 on a quarter million dollar taxable income, all perfectly legal. i But of course, like every President, Mr. Nixon has a dual capacity; he’s not merely paid as a politician but as ceremonial head of government, too. It’s hard to make an estimate of what this all costs because it isn’t isolated in the budget. Writing the other day in Fortune, Dan Cordtz decided that the ac- Last Oct. 15, the U.S. Supreme Court en- tered a laconic order: “Case No. 72-1511. Dickinson v. U.S. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.” ! Few persons paid much attention to the order. It came at a wild time in the news, co- inciding with the Agnew resignation, the Ford nomination, and a losing round for the Pre- sident in the case of the Watergate tapes. Yet the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the sentences imposed in Louisiana upon news- men Larry Dickinson and Gibbs Adams will rank among the most significant and most ominous events of this term. The effect is to give new and powerful meaning to the con- cept of ‘“‘judicial supremacy,” and simultan- eously to jeopardize the prople’s right to know what goes on in their courts. Let me try to give both sides. The case arose two years ago this month in Baton Rouge, where a black civil rights activist, Frank Stewart, had been arrested on a charge of conspiracy to murder the mayor. Stewart denied the charge absolutely and contended that he was the victim of trumped up accusa- tions by the state. After various legal maneu- vers, the case wound up before U.S. District . Judge E. Gordon West for a hearing limited to the single question of whether Stewart’s in- dictment was contrived or legitimate, As the hearing began, Judge West made a stunning announcement: “It is ordered that no, no report of the tes- timony taken in this case shall be made in any newspaper or by radio or television, or by any other news media.” ‘ That breath taking edict, amounting to absolute censorship of the press, was intend- ed to protect the defendant from the possibil- ity that pre-trial publicity might jeopardize the selection of a jury later on. Judge West was doing his duty as he saw it, and there was no reason to challenge the sincerity of his in- tentions. : : : Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Adams, reporters for the Morning Advocate and State Times, had a duty of their own. They could not pos- sibly submit to any such gag upon a free press. They therefore wrote accurate, straightforward accounts of the hearing. Judge West promptly found them guilty of criminal contempt and fined each of them $300. The effect of the Supreme Court’s order of Oct. 15 was to uphold Judge West. There is no. question that Judge West's gag order was in flagrant violation of the Con- stitution. This was the ruling of the 5th U.S. Circuit in August, 1972, when the case came up on appeal. In an opinion by Chief Judge John R. Brown, the Circuit Court held that Judge West's blanket ban on publication of court proceedings ‘‘so far trangresses First Amendment freedoms that any such absolute proscription cannot withstand the mildest - breeze eminating from the Constitution.” tual expense of running the presidency is around $100 million a year. If correct, this rather puts in the shade the cost of the Royal Family over in England estimated at about $2,500,000. > It would be unfair to single out Mr. Nixon alone. We want our Presidents to be well: fed and housed, and the custom goes back to Washington. On the other hand, Mr. Nixon has carried it further, perhaps, than anybody else. It is an outward expression of ‘his masterful attitude in governmental matters: he claims the right to impound funds, for example, whether Congress wants them spent or not, and his interpretation of executive privilege has about it a regal flavor. Columnist Jack Anderson quotes from secret Administration’s costs at San Clemente billed to the taxpayers. The only item we remember is an ice machine that makes square ice because, according to the account, the President ‘‘does not like ice cubes with holes in them.” We think he may have something there; its little things like that that upset a man. The article in Fortune is entitled ‘‘The Imperial Life Style of the US President” and important book is called The Imperial Presidency. ‘¢What.the country needs today,” he observes at one point, ‘‘is a little serious disrespect for the office of the Presidency.” He quotes Montaigne with approval, “Sit he on never so high a throne, a man still sits on his own bottom.”’ Have we carried the royalty thing too far? Mr. Schlesinger is thinking primarily of political aggrandizement, we are concerned here more with the ceremonial - It was readily apparent, said the Circuit Court, that ‘no decision, opinion, report or other authoritative proposal has ever sanc- tioned by holding, hint, dictum, recommenda- tion or otherwise any judicial prohibition of the right of the press to publish accurately re- ports of proceedings which transpire in open court.” Judge West’s order was ‘‘constitu- tionally unacceptable, and hence illegal.” But having said all that, the Circuit Court nevertheless ruled that the order had to be obeyed. The two reporters should have sought ‘immediate judicial review of Judge West’s ban. The publication of news ‘‘can be enjoin- ed.” Newsmen are citizens too, said the Cir- cuit Court, and they must suffer the conse- quences of flagrant, intentional disregard of the mandates of a court. the monarchical - side. One is largely the expression of the other. This shows up nowhere better than in transportation: Mr. Nixon has five Boeing jetliners, 16 helicopter, 11 Lockheed Jetstars, a fleet of limousines, and a yacht. Just the other day, it seems, Bess Truman and her daughter were travgling to Independence, Mo. by first clas rom: partment, paid for by Harry. Lady Bird Johnson flew to New York to shop, on the regular shuttle. Times have changed g&0 the Nixon family and staff are taxied d®ut in government planes and copters. There is good reason for it, perhaps, in this more dangerous day. The question arises, though, about all those gasoline guzzling presidential vehicles as Mr. Nixon asks us to practice austerity, lower the thermostat, and drive 50 miles an hour. No doubt about it, the nation is in a sour mood. Air Force One takes 20,000 gallons of gas on a round trip to San Clemente, and frequently a couple of planes make the trip. We have an energy crisis and this is the first time since Watergate that the President has been called upon to exert personal leadership by appeal and example. When he told Americans to cut back tem- peratures he correctly observed, “and that means in this room, too.’’ Fine, anos over in England if a living room got up to ¥5 or 68 degrees they would call out the fire depart- We don’t begrudge the President relaxa- tion. Just as a hint though, in the present angry mood of the multitude, we think he ought to rein in those Jetliners and helicopt- ers, and go just a little mite easy on those quick trips to his tropical retreats. Where does this leave us? The hearing before Judge West, having to do with alleged misconduct of public officials, was of compe]- ling public interest. The people had a right tl right to know of it then, not days or weeks oj months later, after the process of judicial re view had run its course. x If judges can issue flagrantly tl orders gagging a free press, and then impose, fines or jail sentences for their violation, judges become tyrants. By refusing even to review the case, eight of the nine justices of the Supreme Court now have condoned both censorship and tyranny. This is not law; this is despotism. Those of us who live by the news will have to combat it as best we can. “Ihe scription, $6. per year. Call 675-5211 for subscriptions. Sylvia Cutler, Advertising Sales 2d
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers