76 by Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

Walla Walla Union*Bulletin John A Blel.hen Chairman of the Board

California stalking horse

Brown probably can't make it

w J Penmngton. President

Donald Sherwood, Publisher Christian Anderson, Managing Editor

F. A. Blethen, Associate Publisher F. G. Mitchell, Vice President

Brown also believes that he can have the support of the organization without paying a penalty because head-to-head he sees himself as a more attractive candidate than Carter. As one of his advisers put it: "Carter is interesting because he's winning. Brown wins because he's interesting."

LOS ANGELES — Jerry Brown imparts an air of devil-may-care insouciance to his campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. "I caught a plane and here I am," he says

Monday, May 17,1976

Rights are not violated by uniform appearance Reasonably uniform dress and appearance should be reinstituted at Washington State Penitentiary, particularly in the Minimum Security Building. Looking over the pictures of inmates who escaped during the past several weeks, it is easy to see why they get so far from prison before being recaptured. (One convicted murderer is still at large.) Inmates are now allowed freedom of dress and appearance. They can wear long hair, beards and moustaches and their clothes can be typical of everyday dress seen on streets everywhere. When a prisoner flees, it is a simple matter to whip into a gas station, public restroom or stop at creek and, with a few strokes of a razor, d r a s t i c a l l y alter his appearance in a matter of minutes. Likewise, a quick stop at a secondhand store — or theft from a clothesline or closet — can complete the inmate's "disguise." If there were hair and dress codes, escapees would be more readilv identifiable and unsuspecting motorists would also be tipped off that the hitchhiker is a felon. There would be no infringement on prisoner "rights" if they were

our opinion required to wear uniforms and to have their hair trimmed to prescribed lengths. And this goes for inmates lodged in MSB and the prison's maximum security section. There are many instances on private jobs where uniforms and certain standards of appearance are required and it's h a r d l y unconstitutional. It's a condition of employment. The same to the military. The Army, for example, wouldn't allow hair flowing down the back nor would it tolerate a soldier showing up for a dress parade wearing tennis shoes, denims and a gaudy sportshirt. We're not talking about going back to striped suits and shaved heads or crewcuts. But there can still be progressive procedures within the prison with a code of dress and appearance while maintaining discipline and personal distinction. The Washington Department of Social and Health Services should review its policies on dress and appearance in the light of discipline, identification, and past and future escapes.

Equal jobs at prison The correctional-guards union at Washington State Penitentiary has a valid point in its disagreement over pay and assignments for the three women who have been hired as guards. They contend that the women — if they are to receive the same pay as male guards — should be required to perform equivalent duties. The Union-Bulletin is a strong supporter of equal access to jobs and promotions, rights and pay for women providing they have equal responsibility and perform equal work. In the prison case, it appears the women will not have the same hazardous exposure to inmates as do the male guards. There is. quite obviously, good reason for this. However, since they will not be performing all of the functions of the male guards, the union has good

grounds to raise the issue of the women getting equal pay. There are situations where different jobs have different requirements and responsibilities. In those areas — whether it involves men or women — if the demands are more exacting and performance expectations higher, then the pay should be greater. The guards" union is not being unreasonable because it is proposing two classes of guards. One class would be for the person who performs all necessary correctional functions at the penitentiary and the other would be for the person who has more limited duties. This makes sense and also would allow males — who may not want a position which calls for direct exposure to large numbers of inmates — as well as females to hold a job in a different classification at lower pay.

Connected with that belief is the feeling that Brown takes no serious risks by entering into the race. He and his advisers are well aware that defeat in the Maryland primary on Tuesday could have adverse consequences in the California primary on June 8. They also remember that Brown's father, Gov. Edmund Brown Sr., began going downhill after he tried, vainly, to play a role in the 1960 Democratic race for President.

Joseph Kraft Political rolumnirt

when asked why he is running after only 15 months of service (and rather hermitlike service at that' as governor of • California. In fact, the decision to take the plunge into national politics was carefully debated within the Brown camp. The reasons which led the California governor to go (reasons which I have no doubt he personally believes) also work to make him the perfect stalking-horse against the Democratic front-runner, Jimmy Carter. As usual in these matters, the most important reason by far is Brown's conviction that he can make it. While acknowledging that Jimmy Carter is way out front, his advisers believe that Brown has special qualities which make him a particularly formidable foe for Carter.

But Brown himself has enormous selfconfidence. He and his advisers have taken the measure of most of the other Democratic candidates, including Jimmy Carter. They have concluded that Brown is not going to suffer by personal

comparison as his father did when set beside John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson. On the contrary, their view is that Brown is more articulate, more spontaneously brilliant, more versed in the serious problems of modern government, than any of the candidates in the lists. He and his advisers think he is the only one who has truly coped with the problems now inherent in prevailing public moods and declining public interest in government programs — the problem of limiting the role of government. They sniff at Jimmy Carter's concept of "zero-based budgeting" as a gimmick that might work in Georgia but would have no application for the vast federal budget. They point with pride to Brown's decision to step aside when doctors began protest strikes against high medical insurance rates. "Government couldn't handle that problem," one of Brown's advisers says. "The best thing was to let the doctors, lawyers and

insurance companies sort it out. . When they saw we were not coming in, they did. That is what Jerry calls 'creative inaction.'" Finally, Brown and his advisers believe that the present run can only serve him well in the future. They point out that he has almost overnight acquired a national reputation. They add that he is now only 38 and has years ahead on the national scene. Thus becoming known at this stage is bound to pay dividends in the future. My own view is that Brown cannot make it this year. He started late, failed to qualify in Oregon where he would have done well, and has to contend with a proportional representation system of electing delegates in California which will probably not yield a decisive advantage to him or any other candidate. But I think he remains the most interesting figure in American politics — which makes him the ideal stalking-horse against Jimmy Carter, the man best equipped to beat Carter on behalf of somebody else.

For one thing Brown is identified, as Carter is not, with the traditional background of the Democratic party. He comes from a large industrial state which may be decisive in the November election. He has close personal family ties with labor, liberal and ethnic communities powerful in the party. Virtually all the leading candidates — including Henry Jacksen and Hubert Humphrey — are family friends. Brown feels, accordingly, that he can win the backing of the regular Democratic party which Carter has so far smashed. But Brown also believes that his own newness on the scene and his qualities as a campaigner will take off what has hitherto been the curse of traditional party support. It is typical that there has been rather little comment that Brown's campaign in Maryland is backed by a regular party which has long played by old and dirty rules.

'Wouldn't want an experienced vice guru, would you

U.S. retaliation invited

Israeli settlements represent a time bomb WASHINGTON—Despite the fuzzy decision of the Israeli government to block a new Jewish settlement on the Arab West Bank of the Jordan, Middle

By Rowland E\ans and Robert Novak

East experts here predict major new controversy between the U.S. and Israel over Israel's policy of creeping annexation. Vivid testimony to this came late last month when Republican Sen. Jacob K. Javits of New York, perhaps Israel's strongest benefactor in American politics, issued this confidential warning to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin: The U.S. government does not and will not allow old or new "settlements" — on territory that belonged to Arab states before the six-day war of 1967 — to influence in any way a final political settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors. That word, which Javits passed privately to Rabin and. separately, to

Defense Minister Shimon Peres, the cabinet's leading hawk, and Foreign Minister Yigal Allon. its leading dove, would have been extraordinary in any other time. But in April 1976, when Javits made his trip to Israel and the Middle East, it was simply the latest in a series of warnings from prominent Americans underlining the grave political crisis now building between the U.S. and Israel. Indeed, the mere itinerary of Javits"s tour dramatized the change now threatening what until recently has been 99 per cent approval by the American Jewish community of everything Israel chose to do. For the first time since the Nasser revolution in Egypt 23 years ago, Javits went to Egypt. Syria and Jordan. According to confidential reports received by diplomats here, he informed the rulers of Israel that all the Arab leaders he talked to now accept the existence of Israel. Accordingly, he warned, there may be an irresistible movement in the U.S. to impose a political settlement if the parties to the conflict don't settle it themselves. For that reason, Javits sternly advised his old friends that Israel itself should move toward a more flexible negotiating position. Otherwise, he said, growing inpatience in the U.S. — which

is keeping Israel alive with annual aid of close to $2 billion — might take a nasty turn toward highpressuring Israel. The impact of this careful warning irom Israel's friend was questionable, to say the least. Within a few days of his departure, the feuding Israel cabinet, over which Rabin has minimum control, reached its alarming decision on the settlements question. Bravely, in the face of fanatical opposition from religious Zionists, the cabinet voted to expel the Jewish settlement of Kaddurn. located in the heart of the Arab-Palestinian West Bank population. But at the same time it voted — not bravely — both to let the Kaddum settlers move their settlement closer to the Jordan River and to establish other settlements in the Arab West Bank, along with the 17 already there. Such a "compromise" of one of the most inflammatory political issues in Israel guarantees confrontation with the U.S. Indeed, it flies in the face of repeated warnings from high American officials (most recently William W. Scranton. U.S. ambassador at the United Nations). The failure of those warnings to have the slightest effect on the Israeli .government shows the impotence of American policymakers up to now in dealing with Israel. It has been a

diplomatic truism for years that whenever the U.S. ambassador in Tel Aviv is asked to raise the settlements issue he invariably cables back that the moment would not be "opportune."' But times are changing. One such change is the imminent capture' of the Democratic presidential nomination , by former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter, regarded by Jewish leaders at best as an unknown quantity on the matter of Israel. Another is the possibility that former California Gov. Ronald Reagan will win the Republican nomination. Reagan's record on Israel is good, but his rich, conservative California backers are not trusted by some leaders of the American-Jewish community. The potential herein for political change harmful to what Israel perceives to be its best interest is obvious. To that must be added the growing skepticism among Jewish leaders — totally committed to Israel — who see creeping territorial expansion as a terrible future danger to Israel and who. like the senator from New York, are saying so to Rabin. Accordingly, the compromise within the Israeli cabinet does little to settle the settlements issue and much to invite U.S. retaliation — when the campaign is over and a president is elected.

Foreign policy rates low

Economic problems preoccupying voters

"Little Igor has been very dissident today!"

PRINCETON, N.J. - For the first presidential election year since 1936. the American electorate is concerned chiefly about domestic problems and not questions relating to war and peace. The biggest problems facing the nation today in the view of the public are the high cost of living <named by 38 per cent) and unemployment <named by 24 per cent). The proportion citing the high cost of living has declined somewhat since January, however, continuing a downtrend, while the proportion citing unemployment has remained stable. Despite the strident debate in primary contests between President Ford and Ronald Reagan over whether the United States is No. 1 in military power, only 5 per cent in the survey say the nation's chief problem is one relating to our defense posture or to foreign policy. The survey was conducted in more than 300 communities across the nation. Here is a sample of what people are saying when asked to name what they regard as the country's top problem: A 34-year-old teacher's aide from Florida: "The cost of everything is going up and up and we're still at the same rate of pay as some years ago. Try feeding children a decent meal, not counting the extras that are needed." A 59-year-old male factory worker from Toledo. Ohio: "It's a real struggle to make a go of it these days — you need a whole pocketful of dollars to buy even

the basics of life." Problems grouped under the broad heading "dissatisfaction with government" are named next most often in the survey, by 13 per cent. This is triple the proportion who named such problems in the earlier <January) survey. These views clearly have political undertones, with Democrats predictably more inclined to express dissatisfaction with our national leadership than Republicans. Named fourth most often are the problems of crime and lawlessness, by S per cent in the current survey 'as in the previous one). Not only is crime viewed as one of the top national concerns, it has been far and away Che top local concern when people in earlier surveys •were asked to name the top problem in their own communities. A common lament is expressed by a Hyattsvilte, Md.. engineer: "Crime is getting worse and there doesnl seem to be any real effort being made to control it. Why are dangerous criminals allowed back on the streets?" A crime-related problem, drag abuse, is named by 3 per cent. "The big problems facing us today," said an 18year-old welder from Aurora, 01., "are crime and taking dope. We ought to enforce the laws. I'm in favor of capital punishment." A total of 59 per cent of the parents of children now attending public schools.

golluppoll according to a recent Gallup Poll, say the use of drugs by young people locally is a serious problem. Concern over the lack of morality of American people is named by 4 per cent. but is nevertheless a pervasive concern — taking the form of apprehension over crime, business ethics, and Jack of religious commitment. A recent Gallup survey finds 66 per cent of those interviewed of the belief that people today do not lead as honest and moral Irves as people did in the past. This question, asked at frequent intervals over the last 30 years, was put to the national sample: "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Here are the national results: LATEST High cost of living 38% Unemployment 24 Dissatisfaction with government {poor national leadership, unresponsive gov't.) 13 Crime and lawlessness 8 International problems, foreign policy 5 Moral decline/lack of religious

commitment Corruption in politics Drug abuse Race relations Energy crisis All others Can't say

4 4 3 3 2 22 3 129 %*

'Total adds to more than 100 per cent due to multiple responses. The following table shows the trend in the relative importance of the high cost of living and unemployment in the thinking of voters: MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM FACING AMERICA High Cost UDemplayof Lhing mart LATEST 38% 24% January 47 23 October 1975 57 21 J«ty 51 21 Feb.-March 60 20 October 1S74 79 3 September 81 1 *i?ust 77 2 M.!«--June 48 2 January 25 5 The latest results reported today are based upon in-person interviews with 3,549 adults, 18 and older, taken in more than 300 scientificaHy selected localities across the nation during the period April 23-26.

'SPAPERI