Summer Daily
Summer Edition of
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
Edited and managed by students at the
University of-Michigan
Tuesday, July 10, 1973 News Phone: 764-0552
Nixon won'ttalk...
PRESIDENT Nixon's refusal to testify and submit per-
sonal papers to the Senate Select Watergate Com-
mittee- on the constitutional grounds of "separation of
powers" is a facade that will damage not only himself and
the office of the presidency but the country itself.
In a letter sent to committee chairman Sen. Sam
Ervin (D-N.C.), Nixon wrote, "I have concluded that if I
were to testify before the committee, irreparable damage
would be done to the constitutional separation of powers."
THE invocation of the separation of powers doctrine is
only another attempted obfuscation of the Watergate
inquiry based on constitutional grounds.
The first wrench thrown in the inquiry process was
the President's refusal to have his aides testify before
the committee because of the so-called executive privi-
lege doctrine. But the general outcry after the statement
made the President back down.
The next attempt at subterfuge of the investigative
process was the claim that Ervin's committee was de-
stroying the constitutional rights of the defendants. But
Ervin has justly proceeded with hearings based on his
feelings that the public has a right to know the facts
behind Watergate.
NOW, we hear another attempt to impede the proceed-
ings; again on constitutional grounds.
In Saturday's statement the President invoked as
precedent for his action Harry Truman's refusal to ap-
pear before the House Un-American Activities Com-
mittee in 1953. As usual, however, contrary precedents
are available. Abraham Lincoln, for example, testified
twice before Congressional committees.
In Saturday's letter to Ervin, however, President
Nixon repeated his intention to address the Watergate
matter publicly "at an appropriate time during your hear-
ings." The real issue, then, is how will the President
answers his accusers and, specifically will he allow him-
self to be cross-examined in public.
The President has at his disposal a number of for-
ums from which to choose. Many suggestions have been
offered, and the President can choose one at his discre-
tion.
But cross-examination must be a basic element in
any such forum. A written document is insufficient. For
as Sen. Ervin has stated, "You cannot cross-examine a
piece of paper."
And the President must reverse his stand concerning
disclosure at relevant executive papers. Refusal to do so
leads to the conclusion that evidence is being hidden.
FOR THE good of the presidency, and the country, and
needless to say, for his own good, President Nixon
must make a full accounting of his knowledge of the
Watergate affair. Only then can he possibly resume his
duties without the element of scandal shadowing his
every move.
.g. but will Mitchell?
JOHN Mitchell, who could prove a key figure in Sen.
. Sam Ervin's (D-N.C.) Watergate committee inves-
tigation, begins his testimony before the committee this
morning.
Mitchell, the former attorney general and head of
the Committee for the Re-election of the President, re-
signed the latter post one week aftr the Watergate break-
in. His testimony is important because like John Dean,
H. R. Haldeman, and John Ehrlichman, he was one of
the few men with personal access to the President.
MITCHELL has already been indicted along with former
Secretary of Commerce and campaign treasurer
Maurice Stans in a campaign finance case and has re-
portediy- admitted knowledge of money channelled to
the Watergate defendants after they were arrested-
ostensibly for legal expenses.
Undoubtedly he will be asked about these matters,
but the more critical aspect of his testimony is whether
he told the President about the planning of the Water-
gate operations and subsequent cover-up efforts.
In recent weeks, however, Mitchell's lawyer has said
that his client's testimony will not implicate the Presi-
dent. But under the hard questioning of the Watergate
panel Mitchell may be forced to say more than he intends.
UNLESS Mitchell throws out a few surprises, the anxious
public will have to wait for Haldeman and Ehrlich-
man, and perhaps the President himself, to uncover the
true story behind Watergate. If, indeed, the true story
will ever be known.
Summertime lifestyle iasy:
Having fun is no sweat
By ROBERT BARKIN
Co-Editor
As PORGY stated so succinctly, it's "summer-
time and the livin' is easy." Touring the
campus for the first time since the harried days
of winter-term exams, the starkly-contrasted
tempo of summertime is pleasantly evident.
The weather, of course, bears main respon-
sibility for the new mood pervading the campus.
The days are hot, often humid and vastly dif-
ferent from the polar days that are associated
with Ann Arbor in the winter.
THERE ARE also much fewer people in the
area. The teeming hoards swarming from class
to class have been replaced by a mere trickle of
scantily-attired humanity. Walking on campus
is no longer a horserace. The weather makes that
impossible. It is just too hot to run.
And the ubiquitous lines that accompany every
event during the regular school year are a rarity.
Going to movies or out to eat does not involve
hours of standing and pushing. Arriving ten
minutes before showtime does not automatically
land you a seat in the rear.
The center of entertainment in the city, the
bars, are always packed but not overflowing.
The chances of being shutout are not as great
as during the winter when thousands crowd for
that last stool at the counter.
NOT ONLY does the summer bring fewer
people, but also many different people. Th e
students, of course, still dominate the campus.
But their number has been trimmed to a man-
ageable size.
The real addition to the summer scene is the
so-called "street people." For the Republicans
they are a "blight on Ann Arbor." For the
Rainbow People, they are a source of life. But.
however they are termed, the street people have
a culture of their own. And they inject this
lifestyle into the city's bloodstream.
DOPE IS an ever-present part of Ann Arbor
life. But the combination of the street-people cul-
ture and easy days make it all the more evident.
Peddlers sell their wares in the Diag, often
with a modest twist. One peddler told customers
that he was not trying to make a profit on his
dope deals. "I just want to buy a pair of pants
and a shirt so I can take a chick out tonight,"
he explained. The customer nodded that this
indeed was just cause.
But with the dope peddling there are also dope
crises. At a Sunday concern at Huron H i g h
School, a stage announcement warned that some
people were putting acid in food and giving it
to others. "You won't believe this," said t h e
announcer, "but there is a kid back here who
is tripping on spiked olives."
Dope however, is not the only component of
the street culture. There is also the sharing, or
what others might call panhandling. Sometimes
its wine that is shared, or perhaps grass, or as is
often the case, it is money. "Don't fuck it,"
shouted a member of the street culture, "put
money in the bucket."
The "high-energy" music that resounds from
the Huron High School field every Sunday plays
an integral part in the street life. People enjoy
the music in their own way. Some stand up and
"boogie" while others toss the frisbee, but all
enjoy the "sounds."
For the permanent residents of the city and
many of the students who call Ann Arbor their
home, the thousands of street-people constitute
an irritating invasion. But, they have become
as much a part of Ann Arbor's summer as the
green leaves and sultry days, and just as
ephemeral.
Sens. Ervin and McCarthy:
A minimum of similarities exist
T HE PORTRAIT of Sen. Sam Er-
vin as a contemporary incarna-
tion of the late Sen. Joe McCar-
thy, with Richard Nixon as the
defenseless victim of his wicked
inquisition, in increasingly finding
its way into the public prints. It has
naturally been promoted by Nixon
apologists never heretofore sus-
pected of devout allegiance to the
Bill of Rights. But it has been
defensively taken up by some civil
libertarians quite properly fearful
of succumbing to a double-stand-
and on Congressional investigative
abuses.
Some peripheral aspects of the
preliminary proceedings were ob-
viously subject tovalid criticism.
Too many committee members-
or their aides - were clearly g-ilty
of leaking accounts or private tes-
timony before witnesses took t h e
public stand and faced interroga-
tion. Ervin and his associates have
moved to curb that flaw by cur-
tailing closed previews and briefs.
But beyond that procedural de-
fect, there has been no serious
resemblance between the Ervin
sessions and McCarthy's ruthless
productions. One palpable differ-
ence, of course, it that - until
McCarthy made the arrogant tac-
tical blunder of declaring war on
the U.S. Army - many of his
targets were private citizens being
harassed for associations and be-
liefs.
Moreover, anyone who recalls
- those hearings - or reads the re-
cords thereof - will find no signi-
ficant parallel between the bully-
ing, arbitrary demeanor of Mc-
Carthy's counsel, Roy Cohn, and
that of the Ervin committee's Sam-
uel Dash. If Ervin himself cannot
always resist the temptation to de-
liver parenthetical constitutional
discourses for the benefit of the
TV audience, he has scrupulously
insisted on differentiating hearsay
from evidence. And his occasional
theatrics can hardly be likened to
the intimidatory tantrums that were
McCarthy's favorite exercise -
aimed not only at witnesses but
also at fellow committee members
when they even faintly questioned
his conduct.
THESE contrasts, however, do
not wholly answer the contention
that there is an inhe rent element
of carnival in any televised hearing
and that the rights of some pro-
spective defendants may be im-
periled.
On this point two things need to
be said. One is that it is far more
likely that any such defendants
will be able to use the hearings to
thwart criminal prosecution - be-
cause of prejudicial matters -
than that they will be eventual vic-
tims of any hostile atmosbhere be-
ing generated.
The more fundamental point is
that the hearings were the pro-
duct of the process of coverup that
began in high places the moment
the Watergate burglars bungled.
THE PUBLIC record now shows
beyond dispute that the country
was fed acontinuous diet of false-
hood by press spokesman R o n
Ziegler (who, it is now indicated,
may have at times been a victim
of outright lies told him by his
superiors). It shows that President
Nixon has himself been repeatedly
required to change his own story
when earlier utterances were de-
monstrated to be "inoperative."
We do not yet know the whole
truth; we have only glimpsed the
tangled web. For most Americans
the central question concerns the
role of the President. He h a s al-
ready confessed sponsorship of a
lawless counter-intelligence p r o-
gram that was aborted by the late
J. Edgar Hoover (out of caution
or pride in his own work). He is
personally tarnished by the invas-
ion of the office oftEllsbergs psy-
chiatrist, and by the offer of the
FBI directorship to the judge pre-
siding in the Ellsberg case.
The ultimate, perhaps decisive,
issue remains the degree of his
awareness of and connivance in the
far-flung conspiracy to obstruct jus-
tice with hush money.
IT IS ENTIRELY conceivable
that Mr. Nixon might not have
evaded all these questions if the
Ervin Committee had not come
into existence.
There is no assurance that the
full truth will now be unfolded, but
there is at least a fighting chance
-especially as the men around
Nixon begin to seek self preserva-
tion. Does any aspect of this in-
quiry contain any threat to civil
liberties comparable to the danger-
ous, audascious anti-democratic
games now being exposed? Many
months ago Mr. Nixon was urged
to name a special prosecutor and
thereby forestall the Senate probe.
He chose to defy those appeals,
even gambling on his ability to
sabotage the inquiry through the
use of "executive privilege."
Sam Ervin did not create this
crisis: Mr. Nixon did. In the end,
he will be a morally impotent
Chief Executive until or unless he
faces Ervin's committee. Whether
he can politically survive such
a confrontation may be very un-
certain. But no form of fugitive
survival can restore any semblance
of authority and dignity to his ten?
ure.
James Wechsler is the editor-
ial director for the New York
Post. Copyright 1973, New York
Post Corporation.
l.etters to The Daily
Play draws raves
To The Daily:
THESE ARE not happy times.
Between renewed bombings, gov-
ernmental scandals, worthless dol-
lars and priceless meats, how can
we laugh? What golden spirit does
it take? The Fireside Theatre had
it. And last week (June 3Q.) Peter
Anderson and the Residential Col-
lege Theatre demonstrated t h a t
they just might have it too.
Their play, "The Banana from
Outer Space," literally knocked
and rocked their audiences safely
clear of all the garbage mentioned
above. And then turned around and
laughed at it.
I do, however, have a request for
Mr. Anderson and his hoary band.
Saturday night your ushers must
have turned away at least two
hundred would-be play goers with
the excuse of being "sold out."
So, people, how about a return
engagement? Okay?
-John W. Giese