The Times

The Times

the local community newspaper for all South Dade John T. Watters, President & Publisher William von Maurer, Editor Robert M. Slane, Advertising Manager Subscription: $3.00 year by mail anywhere

More Than Lip Service

South America, that great, colorful mass of land to the south of the United States, is dawning as a new frontier, an awakening group of nations demanding their place in the sun. True to their reputation, Americans know shockingly little about Latin America as the land mass of South America, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean Islands is called. When President Eisenhower presented his People to People program to the people of the United States, only Coral Gables decided to adopt a Latin American city for the cultural exchange on a people to people basis outlined in the President's program. Other American cities, out of habit or out of indifference to Latin America, turned to Europe to invite sister cities into the program. Coral Gables' sister city, as most of us know, is Cartagena, Colombia. The work, planning and thought which Coral Gables has put into its endeavors to draw Cartagena closer to the United States has won for it the American Municipal Association's annual award for public relations. But no award can ever tell of the enthusiasm and the personal expense and devotion which several hundred Gableites have put into this program. They have devoted their time and money to make trips to Cartagena to take America's good will there in person. They have told luncheon clubs, fraternal organizations and other Gableites of the necessity for winning Latin America as a friend for the United States. Ask any Gableite who has made one of the trips to Cartagena, and he will tell you of some experience he has had which enabled him to win a friend for the United States or to dispell a misconception about our country. He will tell you too of the plan which will enable any local citizens to send a personally autographed book to Cartagena to help tell the truth about our democracy. Coral Gables' part in the People to People program is no theoretical, lip-service, token gesture type of thing as so many good will activities are. It is a genuine, vital and well planned endeavor to bring two neighboring continents together in closer understanding. We who live in Coral Gables can be proud of what we are doing in this program. Why not be a part of it? Buy a book, inquire at the local Chamber of Commerce, make a trip with fellow Gableites, or write a letter - but do something to enable you to say that you are supporting one of the most important activities this city has undertaken in a long time. You'll be surprised at the satisfaction you will receive by taking part.

Er.... Be Nice If You'd Wake Up And Join The Party!

PROFILE of the week

Syd Birk, dealer in office supplies, is an active man with widely varied interests in business, dramatics and woodworking. He came to Florida 10 years ago. At first, he had his own real estate agency in Coral Gables. For the last four years, he has owned Birk, Inc., at 2710 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Ariving from Chicago, he made his home at 930 Alava Ave., where he now lives with his wife, Isabel, and his 14-year-old son, John Joseph. John attends Ponce de Leon Juior High School. Active in many civic organizations, he is a member of the Elks, American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He is also a 32nd degree Mason and Shriner. BIRK Recently, he was elected president of the Back Scratchers, a business organization designed to promote business in Coral Gabels. Birk was born in Chicago on Jan. 8, 1912. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in bio-chemistry from the University of Illinois. His hobbies, dramatics and woodworking, take most of his spare time. He has done work for many Studio M productions. Although he does some general carpentry, his specialty is cabinet making. Bn. Chicago, Ill. Ch. John Joseph, 14 M. Isabel Bus. Birk, Inc. Ed. Univ. of Illinois

South Miami Roundup

BY EDWIN KNIGHT KNIGHT WILL IT BE NIXON or Kennedy? The television debates are over. Most of what is going to be said has been said. The candidates have lashed back and f...h at each other making it difficult for any voter to determine the issues, the stands and even the truth. Despite the bigotry, partisanship and appeal of the two candidates on television, the basic question is still the same: who will make the best president for this country during the next four-and perhaps-eight years? ON THIS QUESTION, millions of potential voters are still undecided. To answer the question one has to ask still another question - What do I want in a president at this time? Naturally we want a man who will talk up to the Russians, yet keep us out of war; balance the budget, yet provide more funds for the farmers, the unemployed, the elderly, housing, our allies (whoever they are) and military power. CERTAINLY WE NEED a man who will create better relations with South and Latin America, yet not violate the Organization of American States by booting Castro and his Red friends out of Cuba; draw a defense perimeter in the Orient not to include the islands of Matsu and Quemoy, yet fight to the finish if the Chinese Reds take the two islands because of our erstwhile policy toward Formosa. WE NEED A MAN who will give us a more liberal administration than Ike's, yet maintain the principles of free enterprise; create more financial aid to the states, yet maintain a clear separation of the powers of the federal and state governments; a civil rights policy making all men socially equal, yet permitting segregation in all states that chose it; a higher tariff rate to slow down the influz of foreign good, yet the opening up of more markets for the sale of our own expensive goods. Name the man who will give us all these things and you have named the next president of the United States. THERE'S ONLY ONE catch. Both candidats have pr i-ised all these things and more. Let's take Nixon. A disciple of Eisenhower and prodigy of the Republican party, Nixon intends, if elected, to keep the best of the Eisenhower Administration, make it more liberal and throw in a few ideas of his own. Most of the ideas have come froth during the campaign after listening to Kennedy's speeches. Nixon maintains he is the best qualified for the position because he has been in on the policy-making end of the Eisenhower reign. Out of the other side of his mouth, Nixon says he cannot be responsible for the policies of the Ike Administration. Now for Kennedy. A LIBERAL AMONGST Liberals, Kennedy has promised the sun, moon, stars and peace. He will deliver us from all evil, Communism, inflation, want and conservatism. More sure of himself than Nixon while being a bit younger, Jack, from his appearances on television, will make firm, split second decisions quoting figures that always will be a bit incorrect. He will consult often with his brother, Bob, and maintain a summer home on Cape Cod. Through a pioneer spirit reminiscent of 100 years ago, Kennedy will unleash a spending spree that will make FDR resemble a pauper. NOT AS IF THE ISSUES, the stands and the truths were not clouded enough, the religious issue has to be brought into the fracas to bring out the most bigoted and reactionary attitude ever seen in a modern-day election. Millions of voters in the once-termed Solid South are voting for Nixon not because of his or his party's doctrines but because of a fear of having a Catholic in the White House. MANY PERSONS IN THIS stupendous purge of duty-prodded voters feel that they must vote to maintain a sacred privilege and duty. If this be the thought, then it is idiocy to cast a vote for a candidate merely because one does not believe in the candidate's religious views. Even worse for the nation are the multitudes of voters, most of whom reside in the north, who will cast a ballot for a candidate because a man is a Catholic rather than a Protestant. WITH PARTY POLICIES, a candidates' looks and personality, and hereditary voting habits firmly entrenched as reasons for voting for one man over another, this country does not need the issue of a man being or not being a Catholic as a voting reason. Clouding the issues and truths has become a tool of modern-day elections. In this free and democratic government, truth has become a necessity for maintenance of an informed populace. THE AMERICAN PRESS, as free as any in the world, has gone to great lengths to attempt to insure the public of up-to-date information of the election. Television, too, has come into its own as a campaign weapon, sometimes to the detriment of one candidate over another. In view of this and the confirmed clouding of the issues, one can only suppose that the candidates' views are parallel to the extent of being non-discernible. IN THIS CASE, the informed voter, rather than use bigotry and a candidate's appearance, must resort to party platforms and long-time political doctrines to judge the best candidate. In using this method of choosing between Nixon and Kennedy, one must give the nod to the Democrats - because of past performances, deeds and doctrines. The 1960 Republican party is wallowing in self satisfaction. A change is needed. The leadership of Eisenhower, carried over through Nixon, is not enough for the years 'ahead.

Letters To The Editor Conservation Issue Overshadowed By National Election

Overshadowed by the Presidential race on Election Day is the fate of the State Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. If Amendment 3 to the State Constitution is passed, the commission's status as a non-political agency will be seriously impaired if not destroyed altogether. Its financial independence will be snatched away and its financial resources may be sharply reduced. This strong agency, entrusted with the management of the state's fish and wildlife resources, is almost sure to become a political football if this amendment is passed. Every Floridian intretested in protection of our wildlife resources without political meddling and sectional favoritism should vote a decisive "No" to Amendment No. 3. Conservationists, sportsmen, hunters, fishermen and other Floridians with pride in their state must join forces to defeat this attempt to put the game commission under the thumb of political forces which may have special interests to serve. Two Provisions The amendment has two principal provisions. The first would changg the method by which the commission is appointed. Like most state agencies, the commission is now appointed by the governor with confirmation by the Senate. Under the proposed amendment, the cabinet, consisting of the governor and six other state officials, would appoint the members. The second provision would subject the commission's budget to review and approval of the legislature's budget committee. The commission's budget is now based on revenues from hunting and fishing licenses which bring in nearly $2,500,000 a year. This may be a dazzling nest egg in the eyes of some legislators casting about for new tax sources but what happens to the game commission if you steal its revenue? It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to answer that. Its funds then become dependent on the whims and prejudices of the legislature - and where does that leave the populous areas of the state? What fertile ground there would be for "understandings" with commission members? (Take such and such an action or no money, boys. We'll give you the money, fellows, if ...) Not Sever Funds Is there any assurance that the legislature would appropriate as much as the commission receives for its rapidly expanding task in one of the fastest-growing states? Despite its vital long-range importance, conservation agencies seldom are given all the funds which the experts insist is necessary for protection of our natural resources, either on a state or national level. Most states thus earmark revenue like fishing and hunting license income for conservation purposes. Legislatures are none-too-generous with appropriations for some of their agencies. In 1957-58, for example, the Florida State Board of Conservation received only $1,121,-840 for salt-water conservation work and only $94,320 for geological survey. The Board of Parks and Historic Memorials received only $1,061,835. Compare these figures with the nearly $2,500,000 which the game commission receives from license revenue. Even this income may not meet the needs of the commission if it is to continue its fisheries improvement work, hyacinth control and other recurring tasks. Under present law the legislature can provide more money to the game commission any time it wants to. It should be obvious that to take the power of appointing the game commission away from the governor and give it to the cabinet is an invitation to dissension, lack of unity, and more political swapping. Instead of making for a strong agency reflecting the strength and power of the duly elected head of the state, appointment by cabinet could very well result in a commission operating at cross purposes, reflecting half a dozen different views. With the legislature looking over its shoulder financially and the cabinet exercising its appointment power, such a commission could easily become so jittery and apprehensive as to ruin its effectiveness in carrying out any coordinated program. Amendment No. 3 is a dangerous booby-trap which could seriously damage our fish and wildlife program. It should be tossed out with a resounding "No" vote. John Vosburgh 7925 SW 54th Ave.