The Mail-Journal, Volume 9, Number 26, Milford, Kosciusko County, 26 July 1972 — Page 7

li<- Mail &/«><» * PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY The Milford Mail (Eat 1888) Syracuse-Wawasee Journal (Eat 1907) Consolidated Into The Mail*Journal Feb. 15, 1962 DEMOCRATIC f ' ARCHIBALD E. BAUMGARTNER, Editor and Publisher DELLA BAUMGARTNER, Business Manager Box 8 Syracuse, Ind., — 46567

Do You Read The Legals?

Do you read the legal notices published in this paper? Most of them concern tax monies and are published to help taxpayers understand what officials are spending their money for and to hold those same officials in line when it comes to spending since the taxpayers have a right to be heard on any question they might have. Several county, town, township and school legals appear in this issue of the paper with others to follow in the coming weeks. Most are proposed budgets and should be read and studied.

Confusion Over Prices

Secretary of Agriculture, Dr. Earl L. Butz, explains much of the confusion over today’s food prices by telling of an incident that he experienced while shopping at a supermarket. He relates, “The lady in front of me at the check-out counter took from her cart a quart of milk, a pound of bacon, a box of breakfast cereal, a 10 pound package of detergent, a 25 pound sack of dog food, two pairs of pantyhose, some kitchen towels and soap, eight hand-painted tumblers, and a copper skillet. When she saw the bill for $22.28 she exclaimed, ‘Golly, food is expensive, isn’t it?”’ The furor over high meat prices that swept the country a short time ago was as illogical as the lady’s comment on food prices. A release from the United v States Department of Agriculture states, “Farm beef cattle prices recently reached the level of 20 years ago, but what other prices are just

Do You Read This Page?

We have been contemplating the idea of-, changing or dropping the editorial page of this paper and would like to know your thoughts on the matter. Do you read this page? Would you like for us to continue to publish the editorial page or don’t you

McGovern's 'Break-Even' Income

The Census Bureau reports that in 1971, for the first time, the median income of American families exceeded SIO,OOO. The figure was $10,285 and means that half of all families earned more money than this amount before taxes and half earned lessen “constant dollars” of equal purchasing power, however, the apparent increase is little different from the 1970 figure of $9,867, for inflation erased most of the difference. The midpoint of income for black families was lower, at $6,440, representing about 60 per cent of the middle income of $10,670 for white families. The bureau also reported that about 13 per cent of the nation’s families earn less than the officially defined poverty level — $3,968 last year for an urban family of four and $4,137 this year. , • Os more than 53 million American families, 25 per cent earned more than $15,000, but only 5 per cent earned more than $25,000. These figures are of interest because of the income redistribution scheme of Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic Presidential nominee. His exposition has been a bit foggy, and when asked how much his scheme would cost he said on one occasion, “I don’t know.” Nevertheless, he would give everyone an annual payment out of the federal treasury, presumably SI,OOO. Funds to finance the grant would “come from those above a designated breakeven income ($12,000 for a family of four) and would take the form of additional taxes.” He figures about 20 per cent of taxpayers would “experience a tax increase” totaling $14.1 billion, while 80 per cent would keep all or part of the grant. Thus total income reshuffling would be, by his figures, somewhere around $43.1 billion.

EDITORIALS

State requires their publication for your information. You have the right to agree or object to each budget at a meeting. s The date of each meeting appears in the budget. Complete records of receipts and disbursements for each of the several school corporations are also being published. These too are published for your information and should be read. Why not take a few minutes out and read them. Then you’ll know what your tax money is going for and how it is being spent!

getting up to the levels of 20 years ago? . .. if you deflate present beef prices in line with today’s cheaper dollars, today’s beef prices are a long way under the level of 20 years ago.” The release also reports that total beef production is 2.5 times higher than 20 years ago — farmers produced and marketed 21.9 billion pounds in 1971 compared to 8.8 billion pounds of beef in 1951. Per capita, these figures meant that the average U.S. citizen consumed 114.3 pounds of beef in 1971 versus 56.1 pounds in 1951. The production and distribution efficiency of the food industry — and this includes meat — has given U.S. consumers more and better food than ever before in history. This fact has been obscured by the darkening cloud of inflation. The entire nation should thank rather than criticize the industries that have produced the abundance we enjoy today.

care? Do you have any suggestions for changes? If you have any thoughts on this page why not let us know... stop by one of our offices, give us a ring or jot down your ideas and mail them to us.

A variation he has discussed “would be financed by the present progressive tax system plus a 20 per cent tax surcharge on all taxpayers,” which sounds like robbing Peter to pay Peter. The midpoint income reported by the Census Bureau suggests that 25 per cent of all American families would certainly get it in the neck and a very large majority of the families on the upper side of the $10,285 figure would “experience,” in the senator’s words, “a tax increase.” Certainly, assuming four in the family, giving these people a SI,OOO grant for each parent and child would be a doubtful boon, for it would put them over the senator’s “break-even” point of $12,000 and increase their federal tax biU. Another inference to be drawn from the Census Bureau report is that, inflation being what it is, flat grants per family are relatively meaningless, for the purchasing power of the dollar blows away almost as fast as the handout can , be made. Again, Sen. McGovern has a woozy head for figures, and one of his principal erstwhile backers, Max Palevsky, a wealthy computer manufacturer, discovered, after reviewing McGovern’s cost projections with a panel of economists, that the senator was at least S2O billion off his projections of costs for his minimum-income welfare plan. That is, the tab would come not to $43.1 billion, but to $63.1 billion. But costs are of little consequence in the airy world of the senator. Some computations suggest that total spending in a hypothetical McGovern administration would come to $350 billion a year, which would mean that governments — federal, state, and local — would directly control about one-half of the American economy. (Chicago Tribune)

7 KKOWtT* EARLY FOR FOGTBALLiWR FATHER'S WATCHING A CHRS MATCH'

—X ■ p z KWm B yy>~it 11ymEt ■W-B ' X SS' Copley Newa Service

i Bayh-Lines FROM WASHINGTON | iEOfci* jUr A REPORT TO THE PEOPLE OF INDIANA I °')M U. S bINATOR B:RCrI BAH

The Antitrust Settlement Act

WASHINGTON - Recently I introduced major new legislation known as “The Antitrust Settlement Act of 1972.” This bill will reform the process by which antitrust cases are settled in two important respects. First, it will provide a meaningful way for interested citizens to make their views known before an antitrust case is settled. Second, it will require the Department of Justice to explain to the court and to the public the reasons it has agreed to the proposed settlement. One of the lessons which can be learned from the extensive Judiciary Committee hearings into the manner in which the Justice Department reached a settlement of its antitrust suit against ITT is that there is currently no effective mechanism for ensuring that the public interest is protected in negotiated antitrust settlements. For this reason, the public is rightfully skeptical about the nature of the relationship between government and large private economic interests. Few political realities are more evident today than the need to increase public confidence in the integrity of government. This legislation is a means of accomplishing that goal in an area where public is especially low at the present time. How we react to this and other measures, which combine public involvement and full disclosure will ultimately determine whether our system of government can fulfill its high goals. Democracy simply will not

*<: facts about ‘OUR TOWN’ Milford, Ind. By JERI SEELY Townsman Ted Baumgartner received a nice letter from mer Milford principal Alva Stout who visited this year’s alumni banquet. He said, “My trip back to ‘the old home grounds’ exceeded my fondest expectations.” He admitted to being “a bit excited” when he got up to speak at the large alumni gathering. He said he was also well pleased with the reception given him at the Lions club« dinner where he showed slides of a Canadian hunting trip he took some years ago. His letter goes on — “The jolly good fellowship at your home for the athletes and invited guests capped a good

succeed if government insists on being aloof from the people from which its power flows. The vast majority of antitrust cases are settled by agreement between the Department of Justice and alleged violator without a full trial of the issues. Yet under present regulations, individual citizens have precious little opportunity to bring the attention of the court and the Department their views of the terms of the settlement. Today, after secret negotiations between the Department and the antitrust defendant are concluded, the Department simply sits back and allows the public to comment for 30 days. There are no requirements that the Department publicize the terms of the proposed settlement, or seriously consider the comments that it receives. The bill I introduced would change that. The Antitrust Settlement Act of 1972 will require that the terms of every antitrust settlement be broadly publicized, and that relevant documents be made available to the public around the country. This will ensure that concerned citizens know that the department has decided to forgo a full trial of the case, and that these citizens have the information they need to make intelligent comments about that decision. Further, the bill will require that the court to which the proposed settlement has been submitted withhold a decision on whether to accept the settlement for at least sixty days, during which time it and the Department will consider the comments the public submits.

climax of activities. In a chance to face each other, “eyeball to eyeball” after some half century of years gone by— memories of spectacular victories cheered on by an equally spectacular school band under the direction of the one and only band leader of his day, L. B. Eherenman. “If perchance I should be permitted once again to return to the green, green grass of home let it be like this one. Alva V. Stout” We clipped the following by an unknown author from The AkronMentone News and thought it worth passing along to our readers: The Value Os A Smile A smile creates happiness in the home, fosters good will in business — and is the countersign of friends. It is rest to the weary, daylight to the discouraged, sunshine to the sad, and Nature’s best antidote for trouble. Yet it can not be bought, begged, borrowed or stolen for it is something that is no earthly good to anybody until it is given away!

There are two other important aspects of this bill, both of which are substantial and necessary changes from present practice. First, the court is directed to hold a hearing on the proposed settlement unless it finds that there is no substantial controversy about it. This will give the public a chance in every important case to bring its arguments directly to the judge, or if the court so directs, to a special master appointed to hold the hearing. Second, and perhaps most important of all the bill requires the Attorney General to present to the court and to the public before the settlement becomes final a full statement of the reasons that he believes the proposed settlement to be consistent with the antitrust laws* Such a statement by the Attorney General is the best safeguard the public has to ensure that antitrust settlements are really reached in the public interest. When the Department has good reasons for settling a case — and when it has thought those reasons through — it should have no objection to making its reasons public. And my making them public the Department will avoid the cloud of suspicion that all too often surrounds antitrust settlements. If the Department has done its job conscientiously, there will be little or no administrative burden involved in submitting to the court and the public the statement of reasons this bill requires. Our antitrust laws reflect our nation’s basic faith in the free enterprise system and our nation’s healthy skepticism of the concentration of power political or economic — in the hands of the few. Antitrust actions by the Justice Department are the most important single means of enforcing these laws. I do not go so far as to say that antitrust regulation is too important to be left to the regulators. But I do think that the regulators and the courts will benefit from listening to the views of interested citizens.

And if someone is too tired to give you a smile, just give him one of yours anyway. For nobody needs a smile as much as those who have none left to give. Have you noticed the new Old Glory! . The new flag is flying from the staff at the town hall. The old flag had been the topic of much discussion in Our Town during the past few days. We understand the food is delicious at the new MexicanAmerican restaurant in Our Town. Have you tried it yet? They are really working on the old Chore-Time plant two on Main street in Our Town. It’s being turned into a Catholic church if our information is correct. The new church is to be sponsored by the Saint Martin dePorres church in Syracuse with Father Eugene Zimmerman as pastor. More on this as soon as we talk with Father Zimmerman or someone with additional details. We also understand a new trailer factory is in operation at the old Cecil Foods plant in Our Town.

Know Your Indiana Law _ oKi By JOHN J. DILLON JVflh ’ Attorney at Law This is a public service article explaining provisions of Indiana law in general terms.

Attorney Generars Powers

The interesting case initiated by the Attorney General of Indiana against the trustees of Indiana State university at Terre Haute and others presented clearly the question of the power of the Attorney General in representing the State of Indiana. In this case the Attorney General attempted to recover damages for the destruction of real and personal property which it was alleged occurred due to activity of certain students on the campus in April of 1970. The theory of the action was based upon the allegation that not only were the students responsible for the property destruction, but also the trustees and administrators were responsible for not controlling the students and preventing the damage to public property. Unfortunately these issues were never reached because the suit was dismissed on the basis of the lack of power of the Attorney General of Indiana to bring such an action. In reviewing the dismissal of this case the Court of Appeals of Indiana held that the Attorney General is purely a creature of statute in Indiana and has only those powers delegated to him by the General Assembly. The court then reviewed the multitude of statutes in force in Indiana giving the Attorney General various and sundry powers to bring actions and defend officers of the state in litigation. The court said that the Attorney General of Indiana stands in relation to the State of Indiana as any other lawyer does to his client. The difference, the court noted, was that whereas a

State Bank No. 305 CONSOLIDATED REPORT OF CONDITION OF f STATE BANK OF SYRACUSE i I OF SYRACUSE IN THE STATE OF INDIANA AND DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON JUNE 30, 1972 ASSETS Cash and due from banks (including $ none unposted debits) • 3 868,431.72 U. S. Treasury securities 2,054,004.25 Obligations of other U. S. Government agencies and corporations 200,000.00 Obligations of States and political subdivisions .=. 2,858,763.2? Other securities (including $ None corporate stocks) None Trading account securities - None Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell None Other loans 11,101,794.51 Bank premises, furniture and fixtures, and other assets representing bank premises .... 200,956.16 Real estate owned other than bank premises ... 165,930.37 Investments in subsidiaries not consolidated .... None Customer’s liability to this bank on acceptances outstanding None Other assets K 0,493.25 TOTAL ASSETS $17,586,373.49 LIABILITIES Demand deposits of individuals, partnerships, and corporations 5 3,716,046.99 Time and savings deposits of individuals, part- , no -ecnQo4. nerships. and corporations 10,875,609.84 Deposits of United States Government 290,223.61 Deposits of States and political subdivisions ... 1,058,130.43 Deposits of foreign governments and official institutions • None Deposits of commercial banks None Certified and officers’ checks, etc 227.7Z1.3Z TOTAL DEPOSITS $16,163,237.19 x x X X X (a) Total demand deposits $ 4,866,566.25 x x x x x (<b) Total time and savings deposits $11,301,670.94 xxx X X Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase None Other liabilities for borrowed money ir One Mortgage indebtedness None Acceptances executed by or for account of this bank and outstanding None Other liabilities 192,847.73 TOTAL LIABILITIES $16,361,084 92 MINORITY INTEREST IN CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES None RESERVES ON LOANS AND SECURITIES Reserve for bad debt losses on loans (set up pursuant to Internal Revenue Service rulings) ... $ 69,725.86 Other reserves on loans * £J one «, Reserves on securities None TOTAL RESERVES ON LOANS AND SECURITIES I S 69,725.86 CAPITAL ACCOUNTS Capital notes and debentures ♦ 75.w0.00 Equity capital, total 1,080,562.71 Preferred stock —- total par value None (No. shares outstanding $ None) Common stock-total par value SIO.OO 183,750.00 (No. shares authorized 18,375) (No. shares* oustanding 18,375) Surplus • 450,000.00 Undivided profits 411,812.71 Reserve for contingencies and other capital reserves TOTAL CAPITAL ACCOUNTS $ 1,155,562.71 TOTAL LIABILITIES, RESERVES, AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS $17,586,373.49 MEMORANDA Average of total deposits for the 15 calendar days ending with call date $16,067,025.48 Average of total loans for the 15 calendar days ending with call date 11,043,555.05 Unearned discount on installment loans included » in total capital accounts None I, Robert L. Jones, President, of the above-named bank, do solemnly swear that this report of condition is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Correct —Attest: ROBERT L JONES GAYLORD E. JONES Directors PAUL A. LEVERNIER CHARLES M. HARRIS THOMAS M. TUTTLE KENNETH W. HARKLESS (SEAL) State of Indiana, County of Kosciusko, ss: Sworn to and subscribed before me this 19th day of July, 1972, and I hereby certify that I am not an officer or director of this bank. My commission expires June 4, 1973. , JOANN HOUSER, Notary Public

3

private attorney may rely upon his client’s oral or written instructions in managing litigation, the Attorney General of Indiana must have explicit authority from the General Assembly to institute a civil action for damages against trustees and administrators of< state in-, stitutions. The Attorney General argued that under the common law he should be authorized to represent the general interests of the state in any instance in which property belonging generally to the citizens of the state was damaged and destroyed and that this worthwhile purpose is inherent in the duties of the office of the Attorney General. The court indicated that this was a laudable position by citing an earlier case which held that it would be beneficial and in harmony with changing conditions to increase the authority of the Attorney General in matters of prosecuting wrongs on behalf of the general interest of the state. The court nevertheless said that? duty lies with the Legislature and could not be created by judicial decision. The obvious problem created by this decision is what officer of the state should bring actions of this nature, if such actions are necessary. It is fairly obvious that the Legislature must seriously consider the exact extent of the power of the Attorney General and clarify the conditions under which he may represent all facets of state government.