PAGE EIGHT
’-—SECTION TWO
Bl and
OBLEMS^
t.jp« to aasweir
problem* ot l»
their eeeetJoee
i leqalrle* to l»-
il problem* oed
Ut tome «p to
x irty, eceuuiu.u
lostmeu to bu»l-
All iMoirie*
mee wUI be held
■co. All jnqeir-
Jd be addrewed
ot The f.howaa
, ,
allot. Counselor.
..jtMy mother is very sick and in
Oye hospital as a result of some
government man visiting her
and telling her that some urban]
development company was go
ing to take her home, tear it
down and rebuild something else
for the improvement of the city.
My mother lives in a quiet, old
er' section of the city. We kids
were born there and my moth
er: never expected to sell it or
move from it. This government
man told mother that the prop
erty had been appraised and he
was offering so much money;
that she would have to move
out in sixty days as the house
was to be torn down. If moth
er did not like the price she
could go into court and demand
more. ’But she had to move
out. What can I do about it
and why is it that the govern
ment can come in and take your
property without the owner’s
consent?
—Justinus.
Dear Justinus:
Broad & Church Texaco Service
[FORMERLY OPERATED BY KNAPP BRABBLE]
NOW UNDER MANAGEMENT of LYNN PERRY
» i ' ,
EFFECTIVE MARCH 15th 1 1960
f. '
**WMm JsMI WSk*, Mttk-
1 1 |j jn H
i 'iwdßMUfl&r *->*»■. " V
ml
J
- *\ ™T* '' '■■ T '^s
t , ;;sj . ; ,' - •,*■*■ -'jy' ;. **;* -. * j j‘i , jMwwiUßWUWPi 1
’ « , s
* '• *- ' ' .'»«3Kj
CORNER BROAD and CHURCH STREETS OPPOSITE U. S. POST OFFICE
*52
v . *•. ' ■' •ar m
We Have Purchased the Newest Equipment Available So We Can Service Your Car
The Way It Should Be Serviced,
TRAINED and CAPABLE PESONNEL TO SERVE YOU ,
• h a&
r • \
Complete Line Os B. F. Goodrich Tires And Auto-Lite Batteries *.
| • ' .. . - ..,, . /*.
SKY CHIEF FIRE CHIEF
«r ■• ,<
«
The answers to your ques-j
tions are very simple. As to j
what you can do about it, there]
is not a dam thing you can do
about it; it is too late- To cor
rect the situation you will have
to work for the repeal of all
the social legislation passed by
your Congress and the half
baked decisions of the Federal
courts, including the U. S. Su
preme Court.
This situation has come about,
since the turn of the century,
through the educational forces
of the country feeding the pub
lic a great deal of pap and men
tal tranquilizers. The profess
ors of legal jurisprudence, so
cial and political economy, of
ail the great universities of Yale,
Princeton and Harvard all the
way down to the small college
of Lucinda, in Anamobia, have
been teaching the principle of
social and political expediency
rather than the real principles
of fundamental law and eco
nomics, that justice is cruel but
merciful, that you have to work
to produce and to live; that
nothing comes easy and eventu
ally you have to pay for what
you get, in some form or other.
As a result, we have had a;
great deal of half thought-out
social legislation which provides
for the taking away from those
who work and produce and
gives it to those who do not
deserve it, backed up by poorly
thought-out decisions of the
courts and misinterpretations of
the principles and purposes of
the constitution of the U. S.
Supreme Court.
One of the fundamental, basic
principles of law is the right
to own and dispose 01 property.
Through the centuries men
fought and died to win this
principle and that a man’s home
is his castle; that he could do
with it what he chose; he could
keep it inviolate from all tres
pass and confiscation; he could
sell it to whom he pleased or
refuse to sell it; he could give
it away to whom he pleased and
he had the right to devise it un
der the terms of his will for all
legal purposes. This was al
ways upheld under what is
known as the old constitution,
that is before 1900. Today this
principle has gone down the
drain together with other funda
mental principles of law that
men fought and died to obtain,
including our own Revolution. I
Under the Urban .Renewal Act
of Congress, implemented by
State laws, your property can
be taken away from you with-'
out your aye, yes or no. If'
you do not like the damages of-1
{' red. you have to fight it out|
in court; in the meantime yourj
home has been torn down. This,
comes about in this fashion:
Under the Uiban Renewal Act,
and the supplemental state laws,
a so-called Redevelopment Au
thority is set up, which has the
power of eminent domain, or
condemnation. This Authority
has a planning commission
which decides what should be
done to improve areas according
to their ideas. Under this pro
gram private property is taken
THE CHOWAH HERALD. EDEMTOM. MQOTK CAHOLIKA. THPHSDAT, MAHCHtt. giC
and subsidized, low rent hous
ing is erected in place of the
privately owneu Somes. The
tenants of such subsidized hous
es, do not pay an economic rent
to cover normal taxes, water
and sewer charges and school
taxes, but the other responsible
producers have to absorb these
taxes. This is perfectly legal
under the new social concept of
law and ownership, as stated by
the U. S. Supreme Court in
Berman vs. Parker, 348 U. S. 26.
There is another phase to this
problem and that is the Rede
velopment Authority may sell
the cleared land to private de
velopers and builders, who make
a large profit from the property
taken from the private home
owner.
This new social concept of
law and of the constitution goes
through the entire gamut of
our private lives. The right to
devise and bequeath property is
no longer a fundamental right
According to the U. S. Supreme
Court the intent and purposes
of a will may be set aside if the
administrator is a public agen
cy and the intent of the will is
no longer in keeping with the
current social conditions. See-
Girard Estate. This wilf r was
probated in 1835 and provided
for the setting up. of a home
for half orphan white children.
It was attacked on the ground
that the social conditions had
changed and the state had no
right to discriminate against col- t
ored children. The Supreme:
Court upheld this view.
Then there is the farm legis-'
latiki. A farmer in Pennsyl
vania wanted to raise his own
feed for his chickens and live
stock. He used more of his
own acreage than was allotted!
to him under the farm program.’
This farmer appealed this de
cision all the. way to the U. S.
Supreme Court which held he
was violating the law in rais
ing his own feed and he was'
fined. The same decision ap
plied to the farmer in Minnesoto
who was fined some six thous
and dollars. He sold his farm
and moved to Australia.
Then there are the laws as
to minimum wages. Under,
these laws the Secretary of La-|
bor informed cotton
the wages they had to pay, re
gardless of the efficiency of the
workers; then the Secretary
condemned housing used for (
transient farm workers. If car- 1
ried to extremes, any govern
ment official could close your
own home and deprive you of
the use of x your property. State
laws no longer control health
and welfare.
Further the government is in
business in competition with
private enterprise. The Govern
ment owns, controls, finances
and manages 700 big enterprises,
split up into over three thous
and companies; all operating
without paying any kind of tax
es. but all' are in competition
with private enterprise which
has to produce the taxes to sup
port the government owned
competitors.
Under the guise of interstate
commerce, the federal govern- 1
■
ment takes jurisdiction over
purely labor problems.
It controls the window clean
ers and porterr who main
j tain large office buildings in
[cities on the theory that some
of the tenants in some form or
other, merely by mail, are in
interstate commerce, This story
could go on ad infinitum. It" is
all indicative how far we are
traveling in giving up our indi
vidual rights to own and man
age our own property and to
dispose of it as we see fit. The
Federal Government has gone
far into our private lives.
Where it w.’li end no one knows,
as evidenced by the Federal In
come tax.
Dear Three P’s:
I was engaged to a very nice
man, He was generous and
gave me many presents of jew
elry and a beautiful engagement
ring. Thn I met onother man
I loved more and I broke the
engagement. My first fiance
wants the jewelry back and the
engagement ring. Do I have
to give it back to him legally?
—Rosette.
Dear Rosette:
Actually your question is not
a legal one but a moral one.
If you have accepted these ex
pensive gifts from your boy
friend on the basis of your ac
cepting him as your future hus
band, then you should return
the gifts, as you are no longer
engaged to marry him, but:
someone else.
The legaj question is one of
a gift, and if you look at the
problem from a purely legal ■
point of view,,tie** is no doubt)
that you might keep them. How-i
ever, if your boy friend sued
you for recovery and the case
went to trial, the court might
decide the case on the theory of
a contract to marry your boy!
friend and that the gifts to you)
were part of the consideration in I
f AIM OLD Tvr-tiStlSVll A
l STRAIGHT *
’ BOURBON *
[SEI *
// lip / $/ 25
/I K pint
f 53.50 aa
4/5 QUART
JAMES WALSH & CO.
lawrenceburg, tthrucwr
| the contract. The fact, that iffl
j did not fulfill the contract «*§
j cancelled the
breach of the contract aad*
therefore, the court might
cide that you would have to S
turn the consideration, that *u
: the gifts;
} - **?
1 TRY A HERALD CLASSIFIER
*5pT
•-**»*