Don Chafin's deputies in #LoganCounty #WV (1912-1913) #Appalachia #history #minewars
The following list of Don Chafin’s deputies prior to the Battle of Blair Mountain is based on Record of Bonds C in the Logan County Clerk’s Office in Logan, WV:
Name, Date of Appointment, Surety, Surety Amount, Page
Garland A. Adams…28 January 1913…J.W. Chambers…$5000…236
Joe Adams…14 October 1913…G.F. Gore, A. Dingess, David C. Dingess, Anthony Adams, Sol Adams, Sr., and Sol Adams,…
The following list of Don Chafin’s deputies is based on Record of Bonds E in the Logan County Clerk’s Office in Logan, WV:
Name, Date of Appointment, Surety, Surety Amount, Page
Lawrence Adkins…25 January 1921…Albert Gore…$5000…144
J.T. Ashworth…1 February 1921…J.H. Ford…$5000…155
B.F. Baker…28 February 1921…Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland…$3500…172
Sherwood Baldwin…2 August…
Community news for #Whirlwind, #WestVirginia, for 1911. #HartsCreek #LoganCounty #WestVirginia #history #genealogy
“J.M.,” a local correspondent at Whirlwind in Upper Hart, Logan County, West Virginia, offered the following items on October 13, which the Logan Banner printed on Friday, November 10, 1911:
We are having plenty of rain in this section.
Jerry Sias was here on business Thursday.
S. Riddell made a business trip to Logan Thursday.
RESCINDING IT, HE DECLARES, WOULD SPLIT THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ON WAR
E. W. Kenworthy, The New York Times, 22 August 1967
WASHINGTON — Nicholas Katzenbach, Under Secretary of State, said today that President Johnson “and indeed the country” would be placed “in an extremely difficult position” if Congress rescinded the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of August, 1964.
Mr. Katzenbach, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that if the advance approval to use the armed forces were withdrawn “we would then be in a situation every President... and Congress over the years have responsibly sought to avoid in the conduct of international matters—the situation where they do not act together.”
In his news conference last Friday, President Johnson challenged Congress to withdraw its support of that resolution if it thought “we have acted unwisely or improperly” in exercising the authority it granted him.
Authority Held Abused
The resolution authorized the President to take “all necessary measures” (1) “to repel any armed attack” against United States forces, and (2) “to prevent further aggression.”
A joint resolution was passed with only two dissenting votes in the Senate following a reported attack on two United States destroyers by North Vietnamese PT boats in the Gulf of Tonkin.
In hearings last week on the extent of American commitments overseas, members of the Foreign Relations Committee repeatedly told Mr. Katzenbach that the President had exceeded Congressional intent.
This was so, they said, in that the President had used the resolution as the basis for assuming Congressional support for dispatching United States ground forces to Vietnam and for ordering bombing attacks close to the border of Communist China.
At that time Mr. Katzenbach also said he thought it made no difference, as far as danger to the United States was concerned, whether bombs were dropped 10, 50 or 100 miles from the Chinese border, because no threat to China was involved and Peking understood that.
Today when Senator John Sherman Cooper, Republican of Kentucky, read from a news ticker an article about the shooting down of two United States planes over Communist China, Mr. Katzenbach said:
“Senator, you might be mistaken in relating that to bombing close to China.”
Queried by Mundt
When Mr. Katzenbach resumed testimony today, Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican of South Dakota, recalled that the President had said that he had not considered the resolution necessary but had desired Congressional support.
Mr. Mundt said he did not think a rescinding resolution would pass, but, “If it did pass, I would like to ask you what then in your opinion would be changed and what would the President do?”
Mr. Katzenbach said that, in his view, the President already had the constitutional authority for what he was doing in Vietnam. Consequently, he said, the recision “would by itself not prevent him from continuing to exercise that [authority].”
Nevertheless, he continued, the President and the country would be placed in “an extremely difficult position” because he would assume that Congress would then exercise its constitutional prerogative of not appropriating money for the war.
Mr. Mundt then demurred, saying that he was positive that Congress would not cease to raise funds for forces in the field and that all he was trying to do was to sharpen the constitutional issue.
Thereupon Mr. Katzenbach said that, as interesting as the institutional issue was, the ‘gut issue here is whether or not the Congress supports the President in what he does and low you would then read a recision.”
'Gut Issue’ Overshadowed
However, the constitutional issue was what preoccupied the committee today, as it had last week.
That issue, as most of the nembers saw it, was what con-:rol the Congress had over the ise of the armed forces if there were no declaration of war and f the President asked, and was granted, broad and unspecified authority, to use those forces ‘as he determines.”
Last Thursday Mr. Katzenbach told the committee that a declaration of war was outmoded in today’s world, especially for a war of limited objectives such as the United States was waging in Vietnam.
However, he went on to say that the Southeast Asia collective defense treaty of 1955, together with the Tonkin resolution, gave the President authority to use the armed forces, equivalent to what he would have under a Congressional declaration of war, as provided in the Constitution.
The SEATO treaty called upon the. signatories to meet an armed attack on any member nation, or country covered by the treaty, in accordance with their constitutional processes.
Today Mr. Katzenbach modified this argument somewhat. In line with what Mr. Johnson said Friday, the Under Secretary said that the President did not need the Tonkin resolution but had sought it because “it is extremely important that Congress and the President be as nearly as they can be on the same wave-length.”
Mr. Katzenbach went on to say that the President could have done all that he had done under the obligations assumed in the SEATO treaty.
Committee members were not satisfied by this argument, either, because of the legislative history of the SEATO treaty and the Tonkin resolution.
Thus Senator J. W. Fulbright, committee chairman, noted that John Foster Dulles, late Secretary of State, had assured the Senate, during hearings on the SEATO treaty, that it was not the policy of the United States to build up “a large local force” of United States ground troops on the Asian mainland but to “rely upon the deterrent power of our mobile striking force."
The committee report on the SEATO treaty on Jan. 25, 1955, noted that the committee, upon receiving this assurance from Mr. Dulles, had rejected a proposal “that a reservation be attached to the treaty which would prohibit the use of United States ground, air and naval forces in any defense action unless Congress, by a declaration of war, consented to their use.”
Senator Albert Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, said that the real issue in the debate over the Tonkin resolution, which Mr. Katzenbach himself had described as an “extremely broad” grant of power, was the intent of Congress at the time.
It was originally presented, Mr. Gore said, “in the light of an attack upon a U. S. vessel," and the President had interpreted his request for a resolution “as being a fitting and limited response.”
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat of Missouri, said he doubted whether the President would have had “this power if he did not have the Tonkin Gulf resolution," and he thought that neither the Armed Services nor Foreign Relations Committee would approve another such resolution.
Senator Clifford P. Case, Republican of New Jersey, said the “evil” in the Tonkin resolution was the “one little clause” stating “as the President determines.”
This, he said was “an overreaching,” and put the Congress in a position of turning him down “on the whole thing,” or going along with something that violated all sound precedent.
In a brief statement to the committee, Senator Charles H. Percy, Republican of Illinois, suggested that the President present to the Congress on an annual basis a list of “our national commitments as he sees them, detailing the nature of each commitment, its limitations and the justification for it in terms of national interest.”
Community news for #Whirlwind in #LoganCounty #WV in 1926 #Appalachia #history #genealogy
An unknown correspondent from Whirlwind in Logan County, West Virginia, offered the following items, which the Logan Banner printed on November 2, 1926:
We are having plenty of rain at present.
Albert Gore was the evening guest of Mattie Robinson Friday.
Mrs. Eddie Adams is ill at this writing, we are sorry to say.
Lucy McCloud was calling at the post office Saturday. Did he forget to write this…
Lakeland, CO lab manipulated data from 1996 to 2014
Lakeland, CO lab manipulated data from 1996 to 2014
Lakeland, CO lab manipulated data from 1996 to 2014
Two Interior Department scientists working at the Lakeland, CO lab manipulated data from 1996 to 2014, when their fakery was finally discovered. But the Interior Department has not punished the two scientists as of yet and no one at the agency knows how to prevent the same thing from happening again.
