Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 1, 1966)
OREGON DAILY EMERALD Opinions expressed on the editorial page are those of the Emerald and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the ASUO or the University. Opinions expressed in signed columns are those of the writer. CHUCK BEGGS, Editor LOUIE ABRAMSON Business Manager MAXINE ELLIOTT News Editor BOB CARL Managing Editor PHIL SEMAS Associate Editor WILBUR BISHOP. JR. Advertising Manager ALLEN BAILEY Associate Editor Page 6 University of Oregon, Eugene, Tuesday, February 1, 1966 Important Amendments University students go to the polls Wed nesday in the winter term ASUO primary election. They’ll be voting for senator-at iarge and some other Senate offices. There doesn’t promise to be much of a turnout. Nor will there probably be a much better turnout next week for the general election. And that's unfortunate. For also on both those ballots are some amendments to the ASUO Constitution. They're the same amendments that failed in fall term elections because 25 per cent of the student body didn’t vote. In plain English this is what they’ll do: One limits a person from holding more than one office mentioned in the Constitu tion or financed by the ASUO budget. At present you can hold an unlimited number. Three clarify terms of office for class officers and freshman men's and women’s dormitory representatives. Another one changes the wording of the section that puts a foreign student repre sentative on the Senate to assure that that representative will be a foreign student. One makes it invalid for Senate-passed bills to affect events that occurred before their passage. In other words, it makes ex post facto bills invalid. One has class vice presidents succeeding to the office of president in case the presi dent flunks out or becomes otherwise in eligible. The vice president will hold the office until the next spring elections when a new president and vice president are elected. They're all housekeeping measures needed to straighten out the sloppy writing in the Constitution. The need for each of them has been demonstrated in the past few months. Yet some don’t necessarily have to be made part of the Constitution. Law pro fessor Wendell Basye, chairman of the ASUO Constitutional Committee, which in terprets the Constitution, said last week that any Senate bill that does not conflict with provisions in the Constitution would be legal. Thus the Senate could make some of these changes—limiting offices a person can hold to one, eliminating ex post facto— without amending the Constitution. They may do that if 25 per cent of the student body doesn’t vote either this Wednesday or next. But some of these amendments repre sent changes in items already in the Con stitution. Example: the succession of class vice presidents to the presidency or the clarification of terms for class officers. And it’s not really satisfactory to have these changes made by the Senate. It would be better to have them in the Constitution, where they’ll be as hard to get out as they are to get in. Students should keep things in mind and vote Wednesday to clarify these question able passages. Relief for the House The proposal that drew the greatest ap plause from Congress when President John son presented his State of the Union mes sage was one to lengthen Congressmen’s terms to four years. But those were rnainlv members of the House you heard clapping. The bill may have a tough time in the Senate. Senators would obviously be unhappy about a bill that would give members of the House a “free shot” at Senate seats. Since Congress men are elected every two years, they must give up their House position to run for the Senate, whose members must run only every six years. President Johnson has plenty ot argu ments for the bill. He should. After all, it's r.ot a new idea. It would, of course, elimi nate what he calls “the constant campaign ing” that results because Congressmen must defend their seats every two years. It would make it easier for them to handle the longer sessions and heavier legislative bur den which they now face. President Johnson didn't mention it, but the proposal would probably help him, though not as much as some people are saying. He has proposed that Congressmen be elected only in presidential years. Some C ongressional leaders, especially in the Sen ate. have charged that this will create a “coattail Congress,” because the House will be dependent upon the party leader, the President. It would certainly increase the probabili tv that the President will have a majority of bis own party in the House. The party that wins the Presidency almost always gains in Congress, too. But that’s not complete as surance that Congress will follow blindly behind the President. When John F. Ken nedy was elected in 1960 he carried into i. .... < • Congress a good majority, but most of his legislative program stalled. Still there’s an argument to be made for one amendment that's been proposed in many quarters. President Johnson has pro posed that Congressmen be elected in presi dential election years. But many people in Congress, including Senate leaders Mike Mansfield and Everett Dirkson, have sug gested that half of the House be elected every tv.o years. That would alleviate much of the possibility of a “coattail Congress.” It would also follow the logic that has one third of the Senate elected every two years, thus always assuring a nucleus of experi enced legislators on Capitol Hill. With that one change, President John son’s proposal sounds like a good idea. Something for All Collegiate Press Service caught this item in a newsletter put out by the office of Ore gon Congresswoman Edith Green. It’s an article called “Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds.” It reads: “In order to produce more tobacco, the federal government spent $5,280,000 in fis cal year 1965 to improve tobacco farming techniques and methods of marketing. In addition, the U.S. tobacco subsidies to grow ers amounted to $373,341 in 1965 and $11, 517,064 in 1964. “In order to warn the public of the possi ble relation between smoking and cancer, the federal government spent $3,335,300 on researching tobacco health hazards in the same year. U.S. law requires as of Jan. 1, 1966, every cigarette pack to carry a warn ing to smokers, the wording of which the industry will draft.” Cameron’s Comment rzZ'Z. %:V ■ ' OPEM 5tCl£S Letters to the Editor Sherry Ross Protests Emerald Editor: We, the men ot Sherry Ross, are writing a letter of protest on the standing policy of the Housing Department, that no pets are allowed in University housing facilities. Because Sherry Hoss is one of the oldest dormitories on campus we have a problem with mice. They chew on our furniture and are quite annoy ing when we are trying to study So the men of Sherry Hoss, us ing their American ingenuity, have employed the services of a Siamese cat, who we have nick named "Harry Ross.” In the last two days he has more than lived up to expecta tions by bagging three mice. While we are well aware that complete eradication of this problem is impossible even for Harry, so far he is really doing a job: the noise has already no ticeably decreased and all fur ther progress on our furniture by the mice has ceased. Because of the important role played by Harry in our living quarters U'e plead that an exception he made in his case. So students of the Uni versity get behind the men of Sherry Ross and help us save Harry and control the problem in our living unit. Men of Sherry Ross Kenneth Aebi Freshman, Journalism Secretary Sorry Emerald Editor: Re: Donald G. HofTard’s let ter of Jan. 25. Amusingly point ed: the placement of it gives credit to your journalistic abil ity and sense of humor. However, please inform Mr. Hoffard that I will he unable to vote for him because of his support of issue (4). Becky Darling Graduate, Sociology Reply to Editorial Emerald Editor: In the past the Emerald’s re portorial and editorial coverage of the actions of the Student Conduct Committee have been objective and thought provok ing We were atnazed, therefore, at tiie misinterpretations, inac curacies. and altitudes express ed in your “Unnecessary Bag gage" editorial on Jan, 20 The amendment in question reads “Sanctions may be im posed for infraction of rules pur suant to the following: . . b. Each unit, building or complex may, upon the initiative of a majority thereof, establish housekeeping rules for internal management. Ail such rules must be approved pursuant to I.E 4. above fie., by Student Conduct Committee)." Since dormitory units previously have had the prerogative of c-stab lishing housekeeping rules, tlie only change effected by this amendment is one of enforce ment. While we agree that "the pres sure from the majority of those students who agree upon tlie.se rules should render compliance from tile dissenters," recent ex perience at McLean & Morion lias indicated that present means of enforcement (i.c.. social pres sure) is not sufficient. The ac tions of the Committee provide an opportunity for units having enforcement problems to alle viate their difficulties. We also agree that "the Code needs no excess baggage such as phone duty requirements or dress standards in its regula tions” and that "such rules are for each dormitory to decide for itself, not for general policy decisions in the operation of the conduct program.” This is pre cisely why the amendment pro vided for eacli unit’s initiative (Continued on pa<if 7) Oregon Daily Emerald Ramie Wilmaitli, S|*"itii Kditor N'omi Rovnistcin, A i taut Maii.':.:ii»K K.Jjtor I.at ry l.ange, Ahm .taut New * Editor It.tvill Bl*«\\ll, Religion News Killl'H* Simla I !*liiof Bimt > Editor Si- v«- Uimc'o, Kntrrr, ninent Ed i -r I>;ivi«! Butler, Feature Editoi Editorial Board: ('huel. Hi’KK- . Bob Car!, Maxitie Elliott, IMiil Sernas A11 «*»i Bailify, Bam Bla*|ine, Karen Winn. t lift Kaufman, Cent* Sokol ski, Nt.mi Horen* M« in, Scott Bartlett, Vama \\ elt;-.
