Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Analysis of Something Good Republicans Never Touch


Conant v. McCaffrey, later Conant v. Walters. Case Number 00-17222. 1997-2002.

Summary This allowed for a physician to discuss medical marijuana in a state, California, where medical marijuana is legal, without facing legal sanctions for doing so.

Background This was a class action suit that was upheld for plaintiff physicians by the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court and U.S. District Court. It was filed by Dr. Marcus Conant et. al.
The class action requested that physicians “have the right, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to communicate in the context of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, without government interference or threats of punishment, about the potential benefits and risks of the medical use of marijuana”. They sought injunctive relief from criminal prosecution and revocation of Federal prescription drug licenses.
California voters approved the medical use of marijuana in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The use is required to be contingent upon a physician, orally or in writing, recommending its use.

Plaintiffs Dr, Marcus Conan as a dermatologist first recognized Kaposi’s sarcoma patients with new symptoms which helped lead to the discovery of AIDS. He prescribed medical marijuana and Marinol to about 100 AIDS wasting syndrome patients to stimulate appetites and to curb nausea. Upon receiving threats, he and his staff were “curtailing severely” information on medical marijuana that otherwise would have been provided to patients.
Several other physicians in this class action suit described similar threats that reduced their abilities to discuss medical marijuana with patients.
Several patients were a part of this class action suit. Some argued they would not have continued chemotherapy and they would be dead without the use of medical marijuana.

Defendants: The defendants named were four public officials serving in official capacities that enforce marijuana laws. The first defendant named was Barry McCaffrey, Director of the U.S. National Drug Control Policy Office.

Factual Background: The plaintiffs notes a 1990 survey of over 2,000 oncologists reported 44% recommended marijuana for nausea or stimulating appetite in chemotherapy patients.
It is noted the Food and Drug Administration permits tetrahydrocannabinol (found in marijuana) in synthetic form for treating emesis/vomiting and for treating weight loss in AIDS patients. It is stated that the synthetic form is not as effective and some patients have a side effect of dysphoria/mental confusion and that the pill form is difficult or impossible to be taken by patients with severe nausea.
It is noted that scientific studies have found marijuana have medical efficacy for patients with cancer, AIDS/HIV, glaucoma, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, paraplegia spasms and pain, and quadriplegia spasms and pain.
Medical marijuana is legal in California according to section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
No Federal official, including the named defendants, had ever revoked a prescription drug licensed or punished any physician for recommending marijuana prior to the passage of California’s law legalizing medical marijuana. Barry McCaffrey had publicly threatened to seek prosecution of California physicians who recommend marijuana to patients, In 1996, McCaffrey issued a statement “The Administration’s Response to the Passage of California’s Proposition 215 and Arizona’s Proposition 200) that threatened that a physician recommending marijuana to a patient could be criminally prosecuted, have a license from the Drug Enforcement Administration to prescribe drugs revoked, be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, and have it recommended that a state licensing board revoke a physician license and a surgeon licenses, when applicable.

Irreparable Harm The plaintiffs argue a patient has a constitutional right to a full range of medical information. The threats from the defendants have prevented physicians from providing this full information.

Prayer for Relief The plaintiffs sought to enjoin defendants and others from enforcing or threatening to enforce criminal, civil, and administrative procedures against a physician who recommends marijuana to a patient.

Court Order of Judge Fern M. Smith This order granted class certification and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The order notes the plaintiffs and defendants both appear to agree there are First Amendment rights to discuss using medical marijuana.
The defendants argue the government had a right to regulate the distribution and possession of drugs. Judge Smith notes in NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307 (1964) that the government cannot broadly sweep to invade protected freedoms.
The Judge concluded the First Amendment protects physician-patient communication until the point it becomes criminal that a physician aiding, abetted, or conspired to become a principal in violating a Federal law. This preliminary injunction prohibited the government from taking any administrative action against a physician for recommending marijuana in good faith.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California The Court permanently enjoined the government from initiating any investigation solely because a physician recommending medical marijuana.

Brief for Appellees United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit The Appeals court affirmed the judgment and injunction of the District Court.
The appelles argued it is emphasized this is not about doctors prescribing, distributing, or growing marijuana but is about the First Amendment right to physician-patient confidentiality and that the defendants lack the statutory authority to enforce actions over these discussions that are protected by freedom of speech.
It is noted that physicians recommend other treatments that are not Federally-approved medications, such as chicken soup, red wine, and vitamins. It is further noted that recommending something is not the same as obtaining something or prescribing something intended to be obtained.
The Federal government defendants argued that allowing physicians, who are role models, to recommend marijuana would conflict with their efforts to inform that public and especially young people about the dangers of drugs and marijuana.
It is noted the U.S. Supreme Court held that a physician had a right to discuss abortion or any medical subject with a patient in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 198-200 (1991).It is common law that a physician is required to provide complete information about all treatment options, which was upheld in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 269 (1990). The government is not permitted to distort doctor-patient communication that prevent the patient from receiving uncensored medical information, in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 748, 756-57 (1976).
The appellees noted the government’s argument that a physician recommending medical marijuana conflicts with its public messages against using marijuana. The appelles noted the government cannot limit free speech and cannot restrict speech on the basis of ideology or opinion, according to Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 828 and 929, even when the government is hostile to the opinion expressed, in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989).

Appeals Court Decision The Appeals Court enjoined the Federal government from investigating or revoking a physician’s license as the basis of recommending medical marijuana. It recognized the First Amendment rights of doctor-patient relations.

American Public Health Association et, al. Amicus Brief This brief notes direct observations from health care professionals as well as scientific studies that there are medical benefits to marijuana use. Four of the Amici in this brief use medical marijuana with the permission of the Federal government.
The brief notes that Canada allows physicians to prescribe and recommend medical marijuana. It also observes the House of Lords of Great Britain concluded that marijuana has medical efficacy.
Marinol, which is synthetic marijuana, may be legally prescribed. Marinol acts more slowly and less effectively than does marijuana.

California Medical Association et. al. Amicus Brief This brief defended the free speech of physician-patient speech under the First Amendment. It notes the government may ban illegal conduct yet it cannot suppress speech about illegal activity. It also notes that medicine is regulated by the state and not by the Federal government.

California Academy of Family Physicians et. al. Amicus Brief This brief warns against allowing the Federal government to overreach and stop free speech between physicians and patients. It notes the U.S. Health and Human Services Department warns HMOs against “gag clauses” that limit what doctors tell Medicare patients about treatment options. Both President Clinton and HHS Secretary Donna Shalala have publicly defended the free exchange of information between physicians and patients.

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative et. al. Case Numbers C 98-00085,6,7,8,9 CRB and 98-00245 CRB. (1998-2007)

Summary A cooperative, the Oakland Cannibus Buyers’ Cooperative, grew marijuana. The Federal government put a halt to this. The court agreed that the Federal government may do this. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled there is no medical necessity defense in this case and that the Cooperative’s actions are illegal.

Appellants’ Opening Brief Oakland passed a city ordinance allowing medical marijuana. Oakland’s City Manager selected the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative as the organization permitted to provide medical marijuana and to provide enforcement of the ordinance. City ordinance provided the Cooperative with civil and criminal immunity from state and local government officers. Employees, directors, and agents of the Cooperative are deemed as officers of the City of Oakland.
The Federal government enjoined the Cooperative for violating Federal law against manufacturing, distributing, and possessing marijuana.
The Cooperative notes that California voters passed the Medical Use of Marijuana initiative. The appellants state they are engaged in lawful activities under state and local law.
The Cooperative argued that not allowing seriously ill patients to have medical marijuana violated their Ninth Amendment protections of life and liberty.
The Federal government argues Federal law applies over state and local law.

Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellees in Support of Affirmance This brief filed by The City Attorney for Oakland and others noted that cannabis has been an effective medicine for over 3,000 years. It notes the 1937 testimony of an American Medical Association spokesman arguing against banning marijuana as it would burden health professionals in depriving them of prescribing something that research may prove to be of substantial value. It mentions the LaGuardia Committee’s five year study that found attacks on marijuana as unfounded. It describes how the Shafer Commission, which was led by a “drug hawk” Raymond Shaffer, stacked with conservative doctors, and led by a noted anti-drug Executive Director, concluded marijuana should be decriminalized. Also noted is the recommendation of an Administrative Law Judge that natural marijuana is one of the safety therapeutic substances.

Brief of Amicus Curie. State of California, in Support of Respondents The State seeks to preserve the sovereign jurisdiction of the State and of the electorate that passed Proposition 215. The 9th and 10th amendments give the states the right to determine uses of treating serious illnesses. The 9th Amendment prohibits Congress from interfering with California regulating the health and welfare of its citizens. The 10th Amendment gives states the power to determine powers not delegated by the Constitution. The Supreme Court allows states to use the democratic process to determine the issue of regulating abortion, which California argued is similar to this issue.

Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae and Brief of California Medical Association and National Pain Foundation as Amic Curiae in Support of Respondents The CMA and NPF fully support appropriate regulation of drugs yet argued that physicians and patients should be able to consider alternatives when standard therapies fail. It is argued that, while marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug with no medical use, the Federal government has never claimed that marijuana has no medical use. Marijuana fits the criteria for medical use as it has a known chemistry, has been shown it can be used safely, qualified studies have proved its efficacy, the evidence from the studies are widely available, and qualified experts accept these studies. There are numerous individual cases that show marijuana has a medical use. The DEA argued these are anecdotal cases. It is argued there is a public interest for marijuana to be used as medicine. Allowing marijuana for medical use will not interfere with the government to enforce illegal use of marijuana. There are no alternatives to marijuana for some patients and it is argued they will suffer unspeakably if they are not able to use marijuana.

Amicus Curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union of California et. al. in Support of Respondents It is argued the Controlled Substances Act of the Federal government leaves discretion for an injunction for medical necessity. There are patients in severe physical suffering would face a hardship if marijuana is not available to them.

Brief Amici Curiae of the American Public Health Association et. a. in Support of Respondents. It is noted that the U.S. Institute of Medicine stated there are “limited circumstances in which we recommend smoking marijuana for medical uses”. The British House of Lords also issued a report agreeing there are medical benefits to marijuana. These studies have indicated that marijuana may not be the superior drug for all patients, yet it should be recognized that there are patients who would get the best medicine from using marijuana. It is for these patients that medical marijuana should be provided. Marinol takes more slowly to act and is not as effective as marijuana, in most cases. Many pain and spasm patients require faster treatment than what Marinol provides. The court is urged to look at the full range of facts and recognize there are patients who are unable to use conventional treatment who could benefit from medical marijuana.

Brief Amici Curiae of the Marijuana Policy Project et. al in Support of Respondents. It is argued that the government’s argument that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved the use of medical marijuana should be rejected because the Federal government has impeded research into medical uses for marijuana. A 1986 FDA study found cannabis controlled nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients. Further studies since then have been rejected by the Federal government. Since the FDA process has not operated as Congress intended, it is argued that patients should be allowed to make a medically necessary argument in order to use medical marijuana.

Appellee’s Reply to Brief of Amicus Curiae The Federal government argued a city cannot engage in conduct against Federal law.
The Federal government did not find it relevant the City of Oakland’s argument that Congress had neglected the Shafer Commission report. It notes that Congress has not acted to remove marijuana from being listed as a Class 1 drug.
The Federal government disputes that there is a Constitutional right to use marijuana because the voters of California approved this. It is argued states have no right to have a referendum to declare enforcement of Federal law as being unconstitutional.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Decided. 190 F.3d. 1109. This denied the Cooperative’s motion to dismiss the complaint and found the Cooperative in contempt of injunction. The United States Marshal was empowered to seize the Cooperative’s offices.
The case was remanded to consider allowing the distribution of cannabis to seriously ill patients. The court was asked to consider criteria for a medical necessity exemption.

Reply Brief for Appellant United States of America The Justice Department argued that medical necessity is not a defense for violating Federal law. It is argued it is the clearly expressed intent of Congress to uphold the Controlled Substances Act. Thus, there can be no argument that there is a medical necessity for medical marijuana when Congress has made a clear intent that marijuana should remain illegal, according to the Justice Department. The Shafer Report is mentioned as recommending the decriminalization of marijuana, yet the fact that Congress has continued to keep marijuana illegal in the face of this recommendation demonstrates Congress intends for marijuana to remain illegal, according to the Justice Department. The Government further denies that marijuana is a safe and effective medicine.

Appendix to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari An issue is whether the court’s injunction failed to consider the public interest. The defendants argue that stating that Congress has failed to act does not rebut that there is a medical necessity to medical marijuana.
A District Court injunction prohibited the distribution of cannabis except to patients who are members of the Collective who have a serious medical condition that is treated by cannabis, would suffer immediate harm without cannabis, and there is no reasonable legal alternative to cannabis.
A Federal agent witnessed the Collective violate the injunction and make 14 marijuana transactions. In addition, the Collective issued a press release stating they were going to do this.
The court ruled that Proposition 215 does not conflict with Federal law because it exempts certain people from California drug laws. Thus, a seriously ill California has a right to obtain and use medical marijuana. It remains illegal under Federal law to distribute marijuana for any purpose except for approved research. The Collective claimed to be a cooperative where members shared medical marijuana amongst themselves and that third parties were are involved. The court ruled this argument was not likely to prevail.
The Supremacy Clause makes the only issue whether Federal law has been violated. The court believes this is likely but notes no decision has been made as to whether Proposition 215 is unconstitutional nor if a patient should be enjoined from possessing marijuana upon the recommendation of a physician.
The San Francisco District Attorney raised the issue of the distribution of medical marijuana by a local government under strict controls. It is noted the distribution of clean needles violates Federal law but that the Federal government has not acted to stop these distributions. The court noted this issue was not before the court.

Reply Brief for the Petitioner The Justice Department petitioner argues that Congress has placed marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance that bans it for any purpose, including medical use, although except for approved research. This ban is incompatible with a medical necessity argue, according to the petitioner.

Brief for the Petitioner Congress determined in 1998 that marijuana does not have any medical use. The City of Oakland declared a public health emergency to allow the distribution of medical marijuana. A medical necessity can not apply when there has been a legislative resolution that conflicts with it, according to the Justice Department petitioner.

Brief for the Respondents It is argued that patients who are also Collective members face a choice of evils between violating the law versus facing debilitating pain or loss of eyesight. There are no legal alternative medicines available to these patients. The people obtaining this medicine do so under duress and the Federal government’s actions against them is entrapment, according to the Collective. It is further argued that there are more than research exceptions to the ban on marijuana as the Federal government approved 79 patients to use marijuana for chemotherapy patients. It still permitted eight people to use medical marijuana, at the time of this brief. The brief notes that the Congressional disapproval of not legalizing marijuana is a caption buried in an omnibus appropriations act. The brief argues that patients have a fundamental right to be free from government interference of the personal, self-funded medical decisions. It notes Federal courts traditionally give greater discretion to seriously ill patients.

Oral Argument Before the Supreme Court The Acting U.S. Solicitor General argued Federal statute leaves no room for a medical necessity exception to Federal marijuana law. It is argued necessity requires a balancing of harms that does not apply in this case as Congress has already decided that balance.
A Justice observed a footnote indicating the case is a sham as the Collective may be a front for illegal marijuana use.
A Justice questioned that the Federal government did not enforce this against severely ill patients until California passed its proposition.
The Acting Solicitor General indicated that Marinol is a legal alternative. It was also noted that the FDA has not tested and approved marijuana for medical use.
A Justice questioned why the Federal government did not state it preempted California’s law. The Acting Solicitor General responded that the California law provides a person with a defense against California law, and this does not conflict with Federal law. A Justice then asked if this meant California law states a person would not violated state law but is still at the mercy of Federal law, and the Acting Solicitor General agreed.
A Justice questioned if this was brought as a civil case because California juries may be prone not to convict people on crimes with which they disagree. The U.S. Solicitor General did not have an answer to this, except to state that it is more desirable for find a mechanism to resolve a dispute before jailing people.
George Uelmen, arguing for the respondent Collective and others, claimed not pursing a criminal prosecution deprives the respondents of a jury trial and that the standard of proof differs by bringing a civil case. Instead, a summary judgment was made with no fine but with the business being seized. Thus the respondents could have been be jailed for refusing to abide by the judgment, and done so without a jury trial. The respondents abided by the judgment and halted their activities.
A Justice questioned the medical necessity defense as the action was brought against the Collective clinic and not against the patients. A Justice also questioned that non-medical people had determined what is medically necessary.
Uelman responded that California requires a physician’s recommendation or approval. He argued that these conditions are unusual and were not contemplated by Congress when it required a physician to make a prescription.
A Justice asked if there are any other cases where the court has recognized a medical necessity defense. Uelman state there are none but argued Congress did not rule out this defense. He also stated there is a necessity defense in common law. This extends to the Collective as they have the necessity of not letting someone die from not giving them medicine that would enable them to continue chemotherapy or not go blind from glaucoma.
Underwood rebutted arguing that Congress considered and rejected alternatives to cannabis and thus there can be no medical necessity defense. She noted the respondents never submitted marijuana to the FDA for review.

Supreme Court of the United States The Court rejected the medical necessary argument since marijuana is a controlled substance. It is noted that a medical necessity defense is controversial even at common law. Congress has made a determination of values that marijuana has no medical benefit. This was the opinion of Justice Thomas that was joined by four other Justices.
Justice Stevens with two other justices concurred yet stated medical necessity is not a defense to manufacturing and distributing marijuana. It finds the overbroad language unfortunate as there should be respect for sovereign States and Federal courts should avoid or minimize conflict between Federal and state law.
Justice Breyer did not take part in this decision.

Defendants’ Brief on Remand The defendants raised Constitutional issues they believe the Supreme Court failed to consider which led to an injunction being issued that stopped their operations. It is argued that an injunction must be issued only to protect interstate commerce. They are that intrastate distribution of marijuana does not substantially affect interstate commerce, that its distribution is not an economic activity, and that the action interferes with state rights, as protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments. It is argued it is the will of the people of California that medical marijuana be provided. The injunction violated the public interest.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California Judgement: Permanent injunction The court permanently enjoined the defendants from distributing marijuana.

Gonvalez versus Raich. Also, Ashcroft versus Raich No. 03-1454

Summary The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Federal government may, under the Commerce Clause, enforce the law against marijuana possession in the case of a person who grows marijuana for personal medical use in a state that allows the use of medical marijuana.

Brief for Petitioners It is argued that Congress has approved regulated interstate commerce and the market for controlled substances. The distribution of marijuana violates these laws.

Brief of Respondents The respondents are patients with life-threatening or serious and painful conditions who use marijuana solely for medical purposes as recommended by their physicians. They seek a preliminary injunction to prevent actions brought against them stating they violated the Federal Controlled Substances Act.
The respondents argue that the Commerce Clause does not apply to a medicine that is recommended by a physician and authorized in state law.
It was argued that Angel Raich would die without using marijuana. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a medical necessity argument for distributing and manufacturing marijuana. This is a medical necessity for a respondent.

Reply Brief for the Petitioners It was argued that marijuana has no accepted medical use. It is the duty of the government to prevent this distribution of any illegal Schedule I drug for any purpose. Nothing in the California law states marijuana is now legal under Federal law.
It was argued there is no distinction in the Commerce Clause that distinguishes between medical versus recreational use of a product.

Respondents’ Brief in Opposition It is argued that many health care professionals have found that marijuana is an appropriate medicine to some people who cannot use alternatives. One patient, Diane Monson, grew her own marijuana. Another patient, Angel Raich, is unable to grow her own marijuana due to her physical condition. Her caregivers grew marijuana for her. These plants for were personal medical use, used legally under state law, and involved no violation of interstate commerce. Their physicians stated that marijuana is a required medicine for both these patients.

Arguments Before the U. S. Supreme Court Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement argued that home grown marijuana for medical use could be diverted into interstate commerce. Clement claimed this is an illegal $10.5 billion interstate market. While these particular individuals may not have produced marijuana that entered interstate comment, Clement argued they are of a class where their marijuana could be so diverted.
Clement argued that raw, home grown marijuana contains 400 chemicals and that not all these chemicals can be beneficial, unlike produced medicines such as Marinol. He also argued that smoking marijuana is not a good means to deliver a drug and that while Marinol takes longer to enter the bloodstream, this is good to prevent abusing the medicine.
Randy Barnett, attorney for the respondent, argued the class he is defending are non-economic and are all intrastate. They are not part of the marketplace as they grown their own marijuana for health purposes.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Back When Some Democrat Interrupted Republican Domination

Reed Smith. State Government in Transition: Reforms of the Leader Administration, 1955-1959. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963

It is often difficult for Governors to be strong administrators as they are hampered in what they may effectively implement. It is hard to judge success by how well Governors week and then use what means they find available to implement their programs. The administration of George Leader as Pennsylvania’s Governor from 1955 to 1959, though, is noted for its many implemented reorganizations within state government.

George Leader, as a Democrat, was a change from a century long line of Republican Party domination. Joseph Grundy of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association was a key component of selecting every Republican candidate for Governor and other candidates from 1929 on with added influence from Joseph Pew of Sun Oil Company from 1939 on. Their campaign influence was added by Republican Party political machine organizations, including one in Philadelphia where the politicians, police, and organized crimes had close relations. News reports indicated vote fraud were a part of political machine operations. The Governor controlled much patronage which a main part of keeping the Republican political machinery operating.

The Pennsylvania Governor controlled more patronage into the 1960s and prior than any other state’s Governor. The Pennsylvania Governor could decide who filled about 50,000 jobs. In 1956, Pennsylvania had 52,959 non-civil service jobs compared to 7,433 in New York. These jobs were not personally selected by the Governor yet were allocated to different political party leaders.

The Pennsylvania Governor also had more appointive powers over a broader spectrum of administrative functions than Governors in other states had. George Leader concerned himself primarily with directly appointing department leaders and their deputies. County political chairs chose most highway, prison, and field position within the Labor and Industry Department and mine inspectors within their counties. Robert Jones was Leader’s patronage secretary. Leader insisted on non-patronage recruitment of state mental hospital doctors and nurse, highway engineers, bank examiners and foresters.

George Leader was a farmer, not a traditional occupation for past Governors, and was 36 years old when elected. The average age of previous Governors was 52.

Leader streamlined and delegated operations within the Governor’s office so he could focus on the areas he wished. He was known for his ability of persuasion and in creating a loyal staff. He was idealistic, pragmatic, and had a strong knowledge of state programs and operations. He sought immediate changes rather than holding back in hopes of better future opportunities. This combination won him both many friends and enemies. Friends found his tenacious while enemies found him stubborn.

Leader visited every state institution, prison, and hospital. He was well versed on state issues. He became an advocate on numerous policies involving people with mental and physical disabilities.

Democratic Party leaders did not expect Leader to win. When he won, Leader was an independent liberal who did not feel beholden to the demands of Democratic Party leaders. Leader did not oppose the Democratic Party county leaders and sought to have reformers and party leaders work together. This did not work well with either side as they had differing agendas.

Leader revived the Executive Board, which consisted of the Governor and six department leaders. He also had monthly Cabinet meetings. Leader found the Cabinet too large in size to properly discuss issues, so he used the Cabinet meetings to express common goals to all. The smaller Executive Board was used for deciding how to implement programs.

The Planning Board advised on economic, natural resource, and physical matters.

Leader created the Office of Administration by Executive Order. This office coordinated department actions into unified policies.

A new office of Legislative Secretary was created. This improved communications with the legislators. The Public Relations office was expanded which provided more news to the press, although it is noted much more unfavorable commentary resulted.

A Bureau of Management Methods was created. The office searched for problems in state operations and sought to resolve them. This bureau created several agency reorganizations.

A Bureau of Accounts was created. More modern accounting methods were introduced. Accounting was made more uniform. IBM punch cards helped introduce mechanized bookkeeping and payroll.

There were flaws in the system. The Department of Property and Surplus remained under political patronage. It used practices that were costly and ineffective. Leader discovered favoritism was used in awarding some contracts along with a lack of concern about performance from some administrators. Leader sought to reform these operations yet he met much resistance from the status quo political machinery.

A Bureau of Capital Expenditures was created. Difficulties delayed its becoming operational for three years. While a separate capital budget was produced in addition to the biennial state budget, it was questioned why the Budget Bureau shouldn’t continue handling both budgets.

Leader removed one Cabinet member, Labor and Industry Secretary John Torquato, for using workers compensation jobs for politically connected associates. Leader also removed some Joint Delaware River Bridge Commissioners for misusing funds as well as two sales tax officials who were also Democratic ward leaders for administrative and personality conflicts.

Leader moved 9,000 patronage jobs into civil service by Executive Board decision. A Bureau of Personnel was created to see all patronage positions were filled by qualified people.

Leader achieved much of his legislative agenda. While the majority of State Senators were Republicans in both two year legislative sessions when Leader was Governor, Democrats held 112 House seats to 98 House seats during Leader’s first two years while Republicans held 126 House seats to 83 Democratic House seats in his second two years.

The Mental Health Commissioner became the state’s second highest paid position after the Governor. The Mental Health Department was also reorganized with all positions placed under civil service.

Under Leader, unemployment compensation and workers compensation benefits were increased. The number of weeks a person could collect unemployment compensation was increased. The largest school construction program than ever before occurred. State aid to universities increased. An Industries Development program assisted economically deprived regions. Slum clearance funds were increased. The largest highway construction than was ever before occurred. Agricultural legislation passed exempting farmers from paying tax of gas used on their farms and on improving feed and fertilized quality.

The Pardons Board continued to be a board of mostly nonprofessionals. Despite newspaper criticism of pardons during Leader’s administration about his being soft on criminals, Leader granted fewer pardons than did more recent Governors. It is believed the press attacks were personally motivated because the Philadelphia Inquirer’s publisher’s father had been denied a pardon.

30% of applicants for pardons received pardons in 1930 and 34% received pardons in 1954. Under Leader, 18.3% of applicants received pardons, the lowest rate since 1946.

The Departments of Welfare and Public Assistance were merged under Leader. These two large departments together resulted in one of the largest departments in the country.

Leader moved the Milk Control Commission to greater technical procedures and fewer political connections. Leader’s being a farmer may have led to this attentiveness.

Leader implemented free public education for children with disabilities. This was the first time this was available in Pennsylvania.

Correctional industries were expanded under Leader. Forestry camps were created for juvenile offenders.

Leader’s administration was noted for rapid changes throughout all areas of state government. He is criticized for being more liberal than his more conservative constituency. Leader was an activist who accomplished many reform from his pure energy. The author concludes “Leader is the best recent Governor Pennsylvania has had.”

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Texas Republicans Say "Give Prison a Chance"

Robert Perkinson. Texas Tough: The Rise of America’s Prison Empire. New York: Metropolitan Books. Henry Holt and Co,m 2010.

The philosophy of criminal justice in many Northern states focuses on rehabilitation. The philosophy of criminal justice in many Southern states focuses on retribution. Further, profit is more apt to be a motivation for operating prisons in Southern states than in Northern states.

The largest state prison system is in Texas. The author observes racial disparity in Texas prisons has increased over the past four decades.

1% of U.S. adults are incarcerated, making the U.S. the world’s largest prison system. As the author notes, “just as slavery once stood as a glaring exception to the American promise”, incarceration is today’s exception.

The American criminal justice system has 2.4 million employees and costs $212 billion annually. For comparison, this ls largest than our two biggest private sector employees (Wal-Mart and McDonald’s) combined,

Despite the prevalence of people under incarceration, the author notes “many Americans still don’t know anyone who has been to prison”. This is because incarceration has a strong racial component. 1 in 6 African American males, 1 in 13 Hispanic males, and 1 in 39 white males have been incarcerated. This disparity is about twice as much as before the Supreme Court’s desegregation ruling. The author notes that, in 1965, it would have been impossible to gain approval for a policy that would increase prison spending 44 times while increasing prison racial disparity, yet this was the result.

Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate followed by Texas. Texas increases 691 per 100,000 residents. Texas leads the nation in adults in the criminal justice system, people in for profit imprisonment, supermax lockdowns, and executions.

The author notes “rehabilitative prison has failed, in part, because it was never allowed to succeed.” In Texas, prison reforms since the 1880s have always fallen to budget cutbacks.

There are about 170,000 people incarcerated in Texas. 90,000 of these are imprisoned for nonviolent crimes. 81% of new Texas inmates are imprisoned for nonviolent property crimes or for drug use.

Violent criminals include those who were convicted of possessing pepper spray, resisting arrest, and fighting. Criminologists observed violent criminals are often in the early twenties and that violent tendencies usually decline after their twenties. Thus, long prison sentences hold these criminals past their age when they tend towards violence.

Historically, prisons were primarily workhouses until the U.S. created penitentiaries for long confinement. The theory was the incarcerated would use this time to feel penitent from their crimes.

The 13th Amendment ended slavery, yet allowed slavery as criminal punishment. Slavery thus became a common punishment, with convicts sold by bid. Salve prisoners were often abused, treated poorly, and literally worked to death.

Rail companies hired prisoners. Joseph Brown, Georgia’s Governor, U.S. Senator, and Supreme Court Justice, was a leading employer of prisoners for his coal company.

Prison reform movements were mostly unsuccessful with many Texas Governs and political leaders working to undermine reform efforts.

Tales from ex-convicts and convicts informed others of prison conditions. Leadbelly’s songs of prison torments was part of a movement from the 1940s on, of convicts alerting the public about prison life through song and books. Some convicts starting filing court challenges on prison conditions.

The U.S. Supreme Court intervened. The Civil Rights Act of 1871 allowed for suit in Federal court if Constitutional rights were violated. The NAACP and ACLU began representing inmates. In 1966, there were 218 civil rights violations filed by inmates, in 1972 there were 3,000, and in 1984 there were 18,000. Prisoners were primary beneficiaries of the civil rights movement.

White prisoners received better and easier jobs while in prison, such as bookkeeping. They were also abused far less than were African American prisoners.

Court cases, bad press, and legislative queries into prison operations in the 1970s and 1980s led to changes in the prison system. Politicians such as Alabama Governor George Wallace fought back. Wallace claimed the reformers were coddling prisoners and that criminals had more rights than citizens and police officers. This rhetoric received much popular support in Texas and elsewhere, which slowed or halted many prison reform efforts.

President Nixon declared drugs a major problem, even though more people died from choking on food (2,313 in 1971) than from drugs (2,227 in 1971). Spending on Federal drug enforcement under Nixon rose from $65 million to $791 million. More people began being incarcerated for drugs.

The American Friends Service of the Quakers noted in 1971 that it was Quakers who led the movement to create penitentiaries. They then called for abolishing penitentiaries, noting “this 200 year old experiment has failed.”

Bill Clements was helped in part in being elected Governor of Texas by running ads against incumbent Gov. Mark White for White’s paroling prisoners. Texan George H.W. Bush would be elected President in part by running similar ads against his opponent, Gov. Michael Dukakis.

Governor Clements won approval for $530 million for building 12,500 new prison beds in 1987. These beds were quickly filled. Private prison lobbyists descended upon Texas. Soon, Texas had the largest private prison system in the nation.

Governor Ann Richards favored drug and alcohol (D&A) treatment and guided construction of the largest D&A system on Earth. Still, more prisons were built to house 22,000 more prisoners while Richards was Governor. Richards reduced first time approval rates for parole applications from 79% when Clements was Governor in 1989 to 29% in 1994. Discretionary sentencing was replaced with fixed sentences established by a commission under Governor Richards in 1991. Texas voters approved $1 billion for new prisons while also voting to defeat $750 million for new schools.

Under President Clinton in 1994, Federal assistance for more prison construction and for police was approved, yet it was provided only to state that reduced parole. Also passed during the Clinton Presidency was the Prison Litigation Reform Act that vastly reduced prisoner lawsuits by increasing filing fees and placing low caps on attorney rewards.

George W. Bush defeated Richards for Governor in 1993. Governor Bush changed most D&A beds into prison beds. Stronger drug sentences were passed. There were soon over 90,000 nonviolent inmates in Texas.

Bush reduced D&A funding, increased justice funding, increased longer juvenile sentences, lowered the age for incarceration as an adult to 15, and increased incarcerated juveniles by 150%. Under Governor Bush, prison spending went from $1.4 billion for 119,195 prison beds to $2.4 billion for 166,719 prison beds. Bush also vetoed a bill for statewide public defenders. Texas is one of the few states without public defenders. Texas, with 7% of the nation’s population, has 12% of the nation’s prisoners.

In 2007, Texas had 2,324 crimes that were felonies.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Some Republicans Still Live in Cities (But They Won't Admit It)

Edward Glaeser. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. New York: The Penguin Press, 2011.

The author argues cities are economically and culturally better places to live than non-urban areas. City residents have higher standards of living, healthier lives, and are more environmentally conscious.

Glaeser argues that January temperatures are leading indications of economic growth in cities. Our poor treatment of cities in recent decades has led to greater income inequality, greater economic difficulties, and more environmental problems nationwide.

Two thirds of Americans, or about 253 million, live on 3% of our land that is urban.

New York supplanted Boston as the busiest British colonial port due to shipping wheat and flour which went mostly to Southern colonies. Transportation improvements brought more people to cities. New York declined as a manufacturing area as the global markets grew, yet it remained as a place where people with ideas could comingle, in areas such as academic knowledge, financial innovations, and clothing designs. New York rebounded from financial troubles in the 1970s to where 40% of Manhattan employees are in financial services. Wages increased in Manhattan faster than in all large cities. Manhattan wages are 17% above the national average and 45% above Santa Clara County, a.k.a. Silicon Valley.

Nationwide, city employees earn 30% more than non-metropolitan employees.

Cities globally “are gateways between markets and cultures.”

The author argues Jane Jacobs was wrong that older and shorter buildings would be cheaper. Increasing the supply of housing by building more buildings that are taller decreases housing prices. The author agrees with Jane Jacobs that cities should be very accessible to pedestrians and they should exude creativity.

Historic preservation has its place, according to the author. Yet, Glaeser noted that reducing construction of new homes decreases its supply and increases housing costs. Paris, for instance, is well preserved yet only the wealthy can afford to live there.

Sprawl increases commute times, harms more of the environment, and decreases the sense of community amongst residents. Cities, by comparison, have fewer carbon emissions. Urban dwellers use more mass transit. New York City residents use less gas on average than do residents of any other city.

Athens was a great sixth century B.C. city where much of Western philosophy originated and was explored by many in close residence. Rome had fewer cities and collapsed in part because it had trouble maintaining its many roads and vast infrastructure.

One thousand years ago, three of the four cities with over 50,000 people had Islamic residents, namely Seville, Palermo, and Cordoba. The fourth was Constantinople.

Baghdad in Fifth Century B.C. was a center of exchange of scholastic, philosophical, and mathematical knowledge. Merchants were enriched with a collection of buyers in close proximity.

Nagasaki, beginning in 1543, became a major trading city with Western merchants.

Bangalore was a center of engineering advancements. It remains an international leader in computer and information technologies.

Entrepreneurial advances in information will be what guides future growth.
Cities that adapt to the demands of information will grow economically, Glaeser predicts. Those that don’t will not grow.

Cities that declined in recent years tried to hold on their industrial base, which itself was declining. The cities that grew reinvented themselves and attracted new and growing enterprises.

New York expanded through entrepreneurship. Financial sector employees eared over $78 billion in New York City in 2008.

Some cities declines decline, in part, by what the author calls the “Curley Effect”, named after former Boston Mayor James Michael Curley. Mayor Curley called Anglo Saxons “a strange and stupid race”, an intended insult for many wealthier Bostonians. Some cities that declined actively drove out its wealthier residents. Successful cities attracted wealth and investors.

The author argues the Federal government should allow all people to keep more of their own money. He opposes Federal government policies that help specific locations. He also notes more government programs divert money towards those who are political connected.

Many cities have large numbers of poor residents. Cities that have grown offered ways for poor people to advance themselves. This created new wealth that helped increase the city’s overall wealth.

Government programs on poverty typically target poor people in cities rather than in rural areas. Government programs that help the poor often encourage more poor people to move to cities to access these programs. This further increases urban poverty. A city will improve it is can enable its poorer residents to improve their economic situations.

Empowerment zones were a government program that successfully created jobs for low income workers. Yet it did so at a cost of about $100,000 per job created.

Glaeser argues housing vouchers to low income people allows them to move into improved housing. It also puts public funds into the control of residents rather than the control of builders. Builders often are politically connected and are more prone to use public funds exorbitantly. Studies, though, have shown mixed results with housing vouchers. Overall, African American women improve their lives with vouchers while African American males do not fare as well with vouchers.

Glaeser argues the best Federal policies for poverty are ones that lower artificial barriers between the wealthy and the poor. Policies that provide more to schools in wealthier schools than poorer schools, as often happens currently, only increases the gap between richer and poorer people.

School quality disparities have prevented urban growth in cities such as Detroit. Wealthier people leave urban areas for better schools in the suburbs.

Werner Troesken conducted an economic analysis that showed that, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, cities that invested in municipal waterworks significantly lowered deaths from water borne illnesses. Many troubled cities today, such as Dharavi and Kinshasha, would benefit from investments that reduce diseases and illnesses.

Gilles Duranton and Matthew Turner conducted economic analysis that indicates vehicle miles traveled increases with each mile of new road. Thus, constructing new roads does nothing to lessen congestion.

William Vickrey’s economic analysis shows that vehicle drivers do not factor the lost time costs to other drivers. The economic market answer would be to charge drivers for the congestion they create, such as increasing tools during times of high congestion. London adopted congestion pricing which greatly reduced congestion. So far, the concept of congestion pricing has not been politically viable in the U.S., even though its costs are in the billions of dollars.

An increase in population increases the number of criminal suspects. This makes it harder for police to solve crimes. A doubling of a population reduces crimes solves by approximately 8%.

“Close-knit” communities reduce crime, even in urban areas. Residents watching their neighborhoods that deal with problems when they arise have lower crime rates.

There seems to be no explainable reasons why crime rates fluctuate. The only correlation found is that increases in the number of young people, who commit the most crimes, account for about one fifth of increases in crime. John Donohue and Steve Levitt argue that legalizing abortion led to their being fewer troubled youth which led to lower crime rates.

Crime rates reductions correlate with arrest rates increases more so than with increasing incarceration sentences.

Tougher penalties for drug laws and other crimes increased the number of people in the criminal justice system (incarcerated, on parole, or on probation) from 1.8 million in 1980 to 6.4 million in 2000. Having fewer criminals on the streets lowered violent crimes by 40% during the 1990s. Much debates centers on the increased incarceration of nonviolent criminals. Many of the people who are incarcerated for nonviolent crimes would otherwise lead productive lives, yet some are also violent criminals who were caught more easily committing nonviolent crimes. Society has to weight the costs of denying freedom and reducing the prospects of nonviolent criminals versus lowering crime rates, Glaeser recommends.

Another factor in lowering crimes rates during the 1990s was that there was a 15% increase in the number of police officers. Steven Levitt claims this lowered crime by 5%. An advantage to hiring more police is they are less costly than incarcerating people.

Jack Maple mapped high crime areas in the New York transit system. The New York Police Chief then mapped crime areas in New York. A computer model helped them assign resources to where criminal activity was most occurring.

Cities began reinstating police officers patrolling neighborhoods which the officers knew. Good community contacts helps officers gain trust and to receive information from local residents. Neighborhood patrols were changes from previous concepts of rotating police officers. They were rotated after corruption cases where people were bribing officers known to them.

Neighborhood advisory councils often help police officers. It is noted that police officers who are female and/or of racial minorities have generally been more effective in establishing good community relations.

Suicides and accidents are major reasons of death for younger people. Urban areas have lower suicide and accident rates. New York vehicle deaths are 75% lower than the rest of the nation. The New York suicide rate is 56% less than the rest of the nation. Gun ownership is four times higher in smaller towns than in urban areas.

New York residents aged 54 to 64 have 5.5% lower fatalities than deaths nationwide, 17% less for New Yorkers aged 64 to 74, and 24% less for New Yorkers aged 75 to 84.

Urban residents are most active. Compared to rural residents, urban residents are 98% more likely to see a movie, 44% more likely to see a museum. 26% more likely to drink at a bar, and 19% more likely to go to a rock or pop concert.

Urban residents spend 25% more on footwear.

The 284 foot spire of Trinity Church was once New York’s tallest structure until 1890 when the New York World skyscraper opened and was taller,

Five of today’s ten tallest New York skyscrapers were between between 1930 and 1933. In 1933, New York enacted a 420 page code that regulated building limits that halted much construction. The code also removed New York’s noted setbacks requirements and instead used a system of floor area areas. “Wedding cake” buildings ceased being built as glass and steel slabs were the new norm.

Mumbai enacted a building height limit. This resulted in newcomers living in smaller units. It also created increased congestion.

The author advises cities to replace the permit system with a fees system. Fees should be charged to pay for the social costs of buildings.

Glaeser advises that preservation laws should designate a fixed number of buildings and that the list should be changed only slowly. He seeks to encourage building in areas that need not be preserved.

The author encourages neighborhoods to have the authority to keep their unique characteristics. People should have more influence than should city planners on the directions of their community.

An ironic consequence of efforts by Ian McHarg and others of building new suburban housing projects integrated with nature destroyed more nature from the resulting sprawl.

Housing prices increase by 1.35% for a 1% increase in family income in that area. An area with January temperatures that are 5 degrees warmer than the national average have 3% higher housing prices.

Houston has no zoning code. It provides more affordable housing than do most cities. Houston does have much sprawl and high energy costs.

A gallon of gas, from refining to driving, uses 22 pounds of carbon dioxide. The average family is involved in emitting ten tons of carbon dioxide per year. Gas consumption, according to Glaeser and Matthew Kah, decreases by 106 gallons annually with a doubling of the number of residents per square mile.

California has a good climate than doesn’t require as much energy throughout the year as the rest of the nature.

Centralized governments like Japan tend to have larger capital cities. People locate close to where political power exists. Many businesses want dealings with the government. Japan, even when economically poor during the 1960s, had a population better educated than in most other countries. Many young people started their careers in government employment. This educated workforce helped Japan achieve significant economic gains.

Singapore grew by using both free markets and government directed industrialization.

Cities with a highly skilled population are more apt to adjust over the loss of a major industry

Cities drew from immigration that brings in new talent. A good education system helps city grow and innovate. Poverty programs should help people and not places.

The U.S. population grew by 19.5% or more in every decade from 1790 through 1970 except once, the 1930s.

As Glaeser put it, “The central theme of this book is that cities magnify humanity’s strengths…Our culture, our prosperity, and our freedom are all ultimately gifts of people living, working, and thinking together…the ultimate triumph of the city.”

Tuesday, September 06, 2011

A Timely Book from a Senator and Governor on Being on Time

Edward Martin. Always Be on Time. Harrisburg, Pa.: The Telegraph Press, 1959.

"Always be on time" is a rule the author, a former Pennsylvania Governor and U.S. Senator, learned from his father and abided by throughout his life. Doing so "pays dividends in the long run". He also learned from his youth that hard work pays, that getting the best and earliest crops earned the most money, and that doing one's best brought many gains.

Martin was a student at Waynesburg College when the Battleship Maine sunk in Havana. He joined a National Guard company at college and was elected their Captain. After training in Mt. Gretna, he was sent to the Philippines as a Private. 20% of his fellow soldiers were wounded or killed in his first battle with Spanish regulars. Martin then participated as a Corporal in the 70 day fight against Filipinos until their capital of Malolos fell. Malaria hit most of the soldiers.

Martin furnished college and joined the Bar in 1905. He was "greatly impressed" with Senator Matthew Quay. He went into politics and became Burgess of East Waynesburg in 1906. In 1907, he became County Solicitor where he fought for better highways. The fight over highways would last for a half century for Martin. In 1908, Martin became Greene County Republican Chairman.

During the Spanish American War, Martin volunteered for service. He was placed on Mexican border service where he rose from Sergeant in 1901 to Major in 1910. He notes the National Guard is an important first line of the military.

In 1916, Martin again became County Solicitor. He was criticized by local banks for borrowing public debt funds at 3% interest from New York banks instead of for 6% from local banks.

Martin joined the 10th (changed to 110th) Pennsylvania Infantry during World War I. He was in a building destroyed by an 8 inch shell that killed 17 with only 5 survivors. He couldn't find his helmet and escaped wearing a German helmet. He was almost killed by friendly fire until he identified himself in time as not a German soldier. He one spent 72 hours on duty without sleeping. Several attacks and battles ensued, including surviving bombing that killed 22 and wounded 80. Marik commanded his infantry during five days of fighting. He was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel. His division was considered one of the most efficient of the war,\.

After the war, he wrote a history of his divisions, In 1924, Martin ran for Auditor General and won a contested Republican Primary where he won in every county. He then won the general election, In 1928, he was elected State Treasurer as well as Republican State Committee Chairman. He would remain Chairman until 1934.

The Republican Party split in 1926. The business interests of the Mellons of Mellon Bank and Senator Joseph Grundy, leader of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association, supported George Wharton Pepper for reelection to the U,S. Senate versus Governor Gifford Pinchot versus U.S. Rep. William Vare, a Philadelphia Republican leader. For Governor, John Fisher had the Mellon-Grundy support while Arthur James had Vare's support. Vare and Fisher were elected won in an election Pinchot declared, while certifing the election, was "partially bought and partially stolen."

Martin was State Treasurer during financially troubling times when 130 Pennsylvania banks closed. Pinchot and Grundy unsuccessfully opposed Martin's reelection as Republican State Chairman. He defeated this candidate, S. Van Brown, by 80 to 35.

The Philadelphia Republican machine, according to Martin, was "probably the most efficient political organization in the United States". When Gifford Pinchot defeated John Hemphill for Goveror, Pinchot was cut by the Vare machine as he lost Philadelphia by 245,518 votes while Republican James Davis carried Philadelphia in the Senate race by 260,739 votes.

Martin fought Pinchot and Grundy over who should be President Pro Tem. Martin supported Sen. Augustus Daix of Philadelphia who defeated Sen. William Mansfield of Pittsburgh by 24 to 22. Pincholt, as Goveror, offered patronage jobs to Senators yet the Daix forces held firm.

In 1932, Martin's slate defeated Pinchot's slate for U.S. Senator, two row offices, Supreme Court, one Superior Court position, all State Committee seats, and 73 Delegates to the Republican National Convention. The Pinchot slate won one Superior Court position and two Delegates. At the National Convention, the Pennsylvania delegations unanimously voted for Martin for Vice President.

Both Pinchot and Martin agreed, when Prohibition ended, that the state government should control liquor sales. Martin researched liquor programs in Canadian provinces for Pinchot. The Liquor Control Board was created in 1933.

Martin left politics in 1934. Arthur James appointed Martin as Adjutant General with the rank of Major General in 1939. In 1941, the National Guard was inducted into the U.S. Army.

In 1942, Martin ran for Governor. He had the support of Governor James, Senator Grundy, State Sen. M. Harvey Taylor, Richard Mellon, and others. He was elected.

George Bloom was Governor Martin's Secretary and de facto Chief of Staff. Sen. M. Harvey Taylor was Republican State Chairman and frequently met with Martin's Cabinet.

As Governor, taxes were reduced by $322 million, net bonded indebtedness was reduced, education funding and teacher salaries increased, regular physical exams of all school children were planned, steam purification laws were enacted, mental health hospitals and prisons were constructed, workers compensation benefits were increased, a five year high and rural roads plan was developed, the first African American unit of troops in Pennsylvania was created, the Capitol Park was expanded, a permanent Drake Well museum was created, and Pittsburgh Point Park was improved.

In 1946, Martin was elected to the U.S. Senate. As Senator, he told veterans who were Communists "they had no right to claim the respect and treatment due to veterans." In 1948, the Republican State Committee endorsed Martin for President. He had additional Delegate support in five other states. At the convention, he threw his support to Thomas Dewey, who eventually won the nomination. Martin won reelection to the Senate. He boasts that $250 million in Pennsylvania projects were approved while he was Senator.

Martin was upset to see the increase in Federal government power. In a quarter century, taxes went from 21% of national income to 31% of national income. He did not believe there could be peaceful coexistence with a country, the Soviet Union, that opposed religion. He saw the U.S. as a religious nation.

A Pennypacker Saved Is a Pennypacked Earned (Not That Politicans Then Could Be Bought)

Samuel W. Pennypacker. The Autobiography of a Pennsylvanian. (Harvard Law School Library Reproduction). Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1918.

The author worked in his Grandfather's store, became a school teacher, and then served in the Civil War. He went to Harrisburg as a Sergeant in a Phoenixville company. He slept on the Capitol steps. It was declared that they were required to be sworn into service, and the company he was with refused to be sworn. Pennypacker then joined a group of strangers and served in a Pottstown company as a Private. A few days later, he fought a division of Lee's army as it advanced towards Gettysburg. The inexperienced soldiers delayed the Confederate division a day by fighting them, in Chambersburg Pike and then in Dillsburg.

Pennypacker was active in a literary society. At a convention of literary societies, he was instructed to vote against the admission of African Americans including Octavis Catto. He refused. The society then unseated him and others who favored admitting African Americans.

Pennypacker studied law. He noted "a lawyer sees much of the tragedy of existence". Three people he sued for debts killed themselves.

Pennypacker wrote how Republicans viewed Democrats as part of a "wicked attempt to destroy the government". Reformers sought to "purify" the Republican Party by seeking to remove Simon Cameron as its state party leader. Pennypacker ran as an independent against the Republican organization for nomination to Council. He helped rally many Republicans to attend the nomination meeting but his ticket lost.

Pennypacker wrote that Philadelphia Republican leader James McManes "was an absolute autocrat who tolerated no difference in the ranks."

Pennypacker supported civil service. Pennypacker stated he did not remove anyone for political reasons while Governor. He had a plank adopted by the National Republican League that public employees should be hired for life while maintaining good behavior and that they should be provided merit promotions and pensions.

Pennypacker ran for the Assembly. He was nominated by the Independent Republican and was endorsed by Democrats, temperance voters including the Liquor Men's League, and the Committee of 100. He lost to James Romig.

Pennypakcer was appointed to the Philadelphia Board of Education by the Board of Judges in 1885. He represented the city's 29th Ward.

Pennypacker served on the Board with Richardson Wright, a former State House Speaker. Wright was known to have assisted helped a woman onto a coach and then telling her "and now, Madam, when you reach the bosom of your family, you will be able to tell them that you have been helped on your way by the Honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives."

Pennypacker was appointed as a Judge in 1889. Republican leader Matt Quay approved the appointment. As a Judge, he imposed mandatory fines where other Judges did not impose him. He felt an obligation to the written law. After 14 years as a Judge, he concluded the legislature had created too many technical crimes, he doubted that judicial punishment prevented crimes, special evils such as prostitution should not be assumed to ever be resolved since the burden was seldom placed on on those causing the crime, and that press sensationalism distorted jury verdicts. The press was owned by corporations and operated for profit rather than for providing information.

Attorney General John Elkin wanted to be Governor. Quay objected and sought a candidate, according to Pennypacker, "against whom nothing could be said." Quay approached Pennypacker and assured his concerns that the campaign would not cost him anything. Pennypacker accepted being a candidate.

The Republican Party contributed $5,000 to Pennypacker's campaign. Pennypacker asked Quay about the origins of those funds. Quay replied "I do not see the matter need concern you in any way." Pennypacker was nominated over Elkin in a contentious meeting that Pennypacker wrote in which he "had no part or parcel." An Elkin supporter who switched to Pennypacker asked Quay if he should return money Elkin had given him. Quay replied "No. If you return that money Elkin will use it somewhere else against me."

Pennypacker made a different speech at each event. He let his surroundings dictate what he would say. He campaigned with Senator Boies Penrose. His Democratic opponent, former Governor Robert Pattison delivered the same memorized speech each time. Pennypacker likened Pattison to the katydid, an insect that repeated the same noise and seemingly never did anything.

Pennypacker claimed Quay made only one request of him, and that was to allow betting on horse races. Pennypacker replied "if you choose to introduce an act which abolishes our laws against gambling, I will carefully consider the question. But, remember, that permits the Negro to shoot craps. I think it would be a mistake to allow betting on horses and not on craps." No proposal for allowing gambling was presented to Governor Pennypacker.

Pennypacker did not like the Executive Mansion, He wrote "there was not a single feature about it which had the slightest attractiveness for me. All over it were manifestations of great outlay, awkwardness and bad taste."

Pennypacker turned to advice from many politicians and not just Quay. In his Inaugural address, he called for less legislation, for creating districts for legislators, maintaining the right to vote for a straight party ticket, restricting the right of corporations to use eminent domain on private property, for increased wages paid from profits, that employees should not be prevented from going to work and that labor violence should be harshly dealt with, that a tax should be placed on state products sold to foreign corporations, that the Camp Grounds of Valley Forge and Bushy Run should be cared for, that the University of Pennsylvania should receive state funds as required in the 1776 State Constitution, that the names of owners of newspapers should be printed in each issue, that Pittsburgh and Allegheny should unity into one municipality, and state support should be provided for a Philadelphia seaport.

As Governor, Pennypacker updated the State Library and granted charters only when he agreed they should be granted rather than just ascertaining the paperwork was in order. The state laws were reduced while he was Governor from 1,200 pages to 700 pages. Under the next Governor, the laws increased to their previous size. The Health Department was created under Governor Pennypacker.

Pennypacker was the first Pennsylvania Governor invited by the legislature to address the legislature.

The University of Pennsylvania Trustees met once a year in the Governor's office as they began receiving state funds that for years had only been provided for their hospital., The legislature also appropriated funds to another institution, the Medico Chirurgical College. Pennypacker agreed so long as he could scrutinize their finances and bills, The college agreed to this,

As Governor, he vetoed a bill allowing railroad companies to use eminent domains on homesteads.

Pennypacker sated he consulted Quay and Penrose on filling judicial vacancies, Pennypacker wanted to be a candidate for a state Supreme Court Justice position, He was widely criticized for politicizing the judicial appointment process for his political advantage. He was most hurt by these charges, especially from people who knew his work as a Judge.

Senaor Quay died. Senator Penrose gave Pennypacker a list of recommended nominees. Pennypacker chose somoene not on the list, Phllander Knox. The legislature confirmed Knox 223 to 23. Pennypacker insists Knox was unaware he was under consideration and denies Knox paid to become a Senator.

Pittsburgh and Allegheny were merged with a strong Mayor under Governor Pennypacker. The Mayor could appoint 12,000 positions.

Pennypacker was unsatisfied with the lack of time, not even one day a week, that Israel Durhan was spending as head of the Insurance Department. Durham was a powerful Philadelphia leader. Senator Penrose defended Durham noting Durham was too ill to travel to Harrisburg. When Durham traveled to California for political purposes, Durham then resigned.

Pennypacker also urged the legislature to create primary elections, establish civil service, and require detailed campaign spending reports. Most of his policies were adopted.

A scandal emerged over spending on the new Capitol. Furniture, metal cases, and furnishings were overcharged. Governor Pennypacker dedicated the new Capitol and President Roosevelt spoke at the dedication.

Back When State Legislative Staff Moonlighted With for the KGB

David Wise. The Spy Who Got Away: The Inside Story of Edward Lee Howart, the CIA Agent Who Betrayed His Country's Secrets and Escaped to Moscow. New York Random House, 1988.

The book provides much useful insight into the background of the only CIA agent who defected to the Soviet Union. The situation began with a KGB defection to the CIA.

Vitaly Yurchenko, who led all KGB operations in the US and Canada defected. This happened at a time the CIA image had been faltering. The CIA had mined harbors in Nicaragua, which Sen. Barry Goldwater and others noted was an act of war. Congress was glad this secret CIA action had not led to war and the Senate, by an 84-12 vote, had condemned the CIA. The Yurchenko defection bolstered the CIA at a critical time.

CIA counterintelligence agents wanted to learn intelligence from Yurchenko. Ordinarily, the best method was to get information from a KGB mole who reported inside information while still working at the KGB. Yet information from a defector such as Yurchenko could still be useful. One thing the CIA wanted to know from a defector is who within the CIA was providing information to the KGB.

It was critical for the CIA to verify that Yurchenkos's defection was real and not part of a KGB plot to provide misleading information. This could involved the defector providing correct and verifiable information yet later providing false intelligence that would prove more disruptive than any gain the CIA had from the correct intelligence. The CIA looked to see that true and valuable information was provided, even though doing so also increased the suspicions that an even larger, more disruptive KGB plot could be underway.

A CIA agent, James Jesus Angleton, had previously kept a Soviet defector Yuri Nosenko drugged and in solitary confinement for three and a half years. The CIA was divived on both whether the defection was real and whether the techniques were appropriate. Ultimately, CIA Director William Colby fired Angleton. Yurchenko was treated better, in hopes of attracting more defectors rather than discouraging them with harsh treatment.

The first bit of intelligence CIA debriefers asked of Yurchenko was if he knew of anyone within the CIA who had provided intelligence to the KGB. Yurchenko told he knew of two people. One was a National Security Agent employee. He didn't know his name but provided a description and an approximation as to where he lived.

The second CIA mole Yurchenko knew of was an agent who had been take off of assignment to Moscow. This agent had provided agent code names and intelligence to the KGB that allowed the KGB to identify CIA operatives. This was disturbing to the CIA as this mole had provided knowledge of the most sensitive section of the CIA. This confirmed that someone had let the KGB to arrest a CIA contact Adolf Tolkachev and cause a diplomat Paul Stombaugh, Jr. to be expelled for espionage. Adolf Takachev was executed by the Soviets.There were fears this CIA agent had endangered all CIA operations in Moscow.

Yurchenko provided the CIA with some useful information. Yurchenko claims he defected because he was tired of the KGB system. Yurchekno claimed the CIA offered him $1 million plus $62,500 a year and $48.000 worth of furnishings. Yurchenko later walked out on his CIA guard and disappeared. Yurchenko had complained he was alone and not allowed to speak to his family. Yurchenko returned to the Soviet Union. Officials are divided whether his initial defection was real or not.

The CIA determined the agent who compromised their Moscow operations was Edward Lee Howard. Howard had been dismissed for failing a polygraph test regarding petty theft. The CIA had already considered Howard as a security risk and Howard had even admitted to the CIA he had considered selling secrets to the KGB. The CIA then concluded Howard really had sold secrets. The CIA claims Howard's information provided to the KGB "wiped out" the Moscow station.

The CIA began and for several decades, recruited almost all employees from Ivy League colleges who knew each other from prep school. Admiral Stansfield Turner, CIA Director in 1977, removed 820 Clandestine Services employees. The CIA culture rapidly changed as employees were fed into the CIA from colleges from around the country. Even this was difficult, as the CIA paid college graduates less than did the private sector, and CIA work was more dangerous.

Howard worked for the Peace Corps and had left that employment six years before joining the CIA. The CIA would not hire someone from the Peace Corps for five years after their Peace Corps service.

Howard admitted to past drug use while undergoing a polygraph administered to applicants. The CIA would hire past users but would not allow drug use afterwards. The CIA used to not hire drug users, but reality that there were insufficient applicants led to a change in this policy.

Howard trained for the CIA at Camp Peary, which the CIA does not admit exists. While there, Howard saw where Yuri Nosenko was held in a house bordered by barb wire. Howard found the house "eerie".

Howard's wife Mary worked for the CIA as a Secretary. The CIA planned that both would be spies in Moscow. They figured two people could better keep an eye on matters. Howard was a rush replacement for Moscow duty when a previously selected person failed a psychological requirement. It was soon observed, but not officially noted, that Howard drank heavily.

The CIA often sends people with little experience to Moscow. The KGB would not have information on them and were less likely to suspect they were CIA agents. Howard had a background with the Peace Corps and the Agency for International Development, and thus did not appear to be a traditional CIA spy.

By agreement, the KBG and CIA are told whose each other's station chiefs are, and each approves the other's choice. The American public, though, is not told.

CIA contacts some agents only a few times a year. The meetings are brief with the agents usually passing information on microfilm.

Howard read the cables from the Soviet desk to D.C. for 15 months. Howard thus knew a lot about Moscow CIA programs. Howard worked overtime on Saturdays to learn more about what the CIA was doing in Moscow. Howard knew code names of agents and where their meeting places were.

The CIA has great faith in lie detectors, even thoughts its accuracy is suspect. A University of Pennsylvania study found taking a specific drug allowed 27% of those studied to lie without detection. An Office of Technology Assessment study found lie detectors found 19% are liars who in fact were telling the truth

The CIA administered four lie detector tests on Howard. The tests suggested deception in some responses. His hard drinking then raised more concerns. Howard's superiors were split over firing Howard or transferring him. Some feared he could provide the KGB with secrets and he would be more valuable to the KGB if he remained inside the CIA. They decided to insist upon his resignation or else be fired. He was allowed to state on his resume he was an Economic Specialist with the State Department. Howard was never told what the problem with the polygraph was.

Howard did not take this failure in life well. He made drunken, strange phone calls to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. He left a message for the Station Chief, who is known to the KGB, which tipped off that he was a CIA employee. This he admits was a vengeful call and Howard admits he know the KGB would hear it.

The CIA claims Howard contacted a KGB Colonel. Howard denies this. The CIA has no law enforcement authority within the U.S. Yet the CIA did not alert the FBI about the concerns that Howard may be violating security laws. IN fact, the course of action the CIA took was to hide these suspicions.

Howard replied to an ad for an Economic Analyst with the New Mexico's Legislative Finance Committee. They were impressed a former State Department economist was applying and he was hired. In an irony, the Howard rented an apartment from Santa Fe's FBI supervisor.

Howard was known for performing well at his job with the New Mexico legislature. He did tell one of the staffers, when drunk, he had been with the CIA. Howard drank heavily but it did not affect his work.

When working for the New Mexico legislature, Howard opposed a bill the Governor wanted divesting state investments in South Africa. Howard was known as a good worker yet he pulled some office pranks. Howard once wrote a false press report stating oil prices had crashed. He was also active with the National Conference of State Legislatures, where he was noted for his knowledge of local drinking establishments.

Howard, while visiting Washington, D.C., considered going to the Soviet Embassy with an offer to sell information. Howard claims he decided not to do so. The CIA states Howard contacted the Soviets and let them know he was a former CIA employee.

As a state legislative aide, Howard visited Los Alamos National Laboratory which researched nuclear weapons. The officials claim Howard did not inquire about any secrets.

Howard, after heavy drinking, pulled a Magnum on two men leading an an altercation where Howard discharged his weapon into one of the men's vehicle. The men got his gun and wallet and reported this to the police. Howard was charged with felony aggravated assault. Howard called the CIA for help. The District Attorney's office denies the CIA ever contacted them. Howard entered himself into alcohol and psychological counseling. He plea bargained a guilty plea for five years of probation.

Bill Bosch, himself dismissed from the CIA, met with Howard. Bosch claims Howard discussed seeking revenge on the CIA and suggested they visit the Soviet embassy in Mexico. Bosch thought Howard wasn't serious and that the trip never happened. The CIA claims Bosch states the Soviets paid for Howard's travel and that Howard had met with them. Bosh denied stating Howard ever or did said anything more than he was contemplating selling secrets.

Howard represented the Legislative Finance Committee (though he claims he paid for the trip himself) at a conference in Milan. The CIA believes it was in Milan when Howard sold information to the KGB. The FBI states Howard sold intelligence to the KGB while in Vienna on this trip. Howard claims he never was in Vienna.

When the FBI was informed of the CIA's suspicions that Howard was selling intelligence, the FBI was slow to act. The FBI placed Howard under surveillance. Howard spotted them. The FBI then approached Howard and told him that he had been named as an informant. Howard refused to take a lie detector test, since he already distrusted them.

Howard's wife refused to tell the FBI whether she thought he had sold secrets to the KGB. She denied having any knowledge he had done so. She later admitted the KGB paid for their trip to Europe. She also told the FBI that Howard had $150,000 in a Swiss account and also had money buried in the desert. She led the FBI to the buried funds where the FBI dug up $10,000.

The Grand Old Party Is Not New Orleans During Mardi Gras

William A Stone. The Tale of a Plain Man. 2nd Edition. Philadelphia, Pa.: The John C. Winston Company, 1918. (Pennsylvania State University Libraries reprint).

The author, who was a Pennsylvania Governor, was born in 1846. He grew up where kissing was forbidden, even at weddings. Illnesses were fought with plants and sweating to boiling hemlock. Doctors were not required to be formally educated, and they mostly prescribed a plant with a low level toxin, aconite, and belladonna, a plant mixture. People would get up before dawn to travel 20 miles to hear politicians debate.

Stone attended an 1856 debate between two stump speakers, John Simpson for the Democrats and Galusha Grow for the Republicans. Many arrived from miles around to hear them. Simpson fell asleep during Grow's speech and vomited while asleep. After Simpson's speech, Grow responded "I can never listen to a Republican speech without becoming so deathly ill that I must vomit."

Stone's house was part of the Underground Railroad. His parents hid African Americans in a spare room and moved them away at night to another location 20 miles north on the way to freedom in Canada. Stone's father was also active in local politics, serving as Town Clerk, Treasurer, Assessor, School Director, and Justice of the Peace.

Stone enlisted for six months with the Pennsylvania volunteers for the Civil War. He did not have his father's consent and a telegram from his father to Senator Simon Cameron got him sent home. When Stone convinced his father that, without his consent, Stone would enlist under another name, his father gave his consent. Stone admits he felt shame staying home when others were volunteering.

Chronic siarrhea was a problem for Stone and many other Union soldiers. After finding a dead man in a well, water was brought from a distant creek. Stone participated in capturing a Confederate railroad. He helped fight a Confederate attack that didn't realize they had charged between two Union lines and thus were slaughtered. Stone's regiment was sent to Camp Cadwalder outside Philadelphia. He and others were upset to march in a parade with officers who ever left Philadelphia and never saw battle. There was criticism that the battle worn soldiers did not look as good as those who didn't see battle and were wearing their dress uniforms, a uniforms those in combat had discarded as necessary to carry. Captain Morgan Hart and others took offense to the criticism that they didn't look like proper soldiers. Hart and some others received court martials for insubordination.

After the war, Stone taught public school in Baldwin. His salary in 1865 was $20 a month plus board. He applied for admission to the Pennsylvania Bar in 1870. The interview with the Bar committee did not go well. They mentioned he needed to ask others when the proper interview rules were. He did, and the next time brought whisky and cigars for the interview. He was unanimously admitted to the Bar. Many young lawyers, as was Stone, were interested in politics. Stone was appointed Adjutant General with rank of Lieutenant Colonel in a National Guard division.

In 1872, Stone was appointed a Transcribing Clerk to the Pennsylvania legislature. He learned how Senator Simon Cameron and his lieutenants Matt Quay and Robert Mackey were important leaders who rewarded loyal followers. The political organization gave money for Stone and other sto help persuade, for $1 to $2 per vote. In 1874, Stone became District Attorney. In 1876, he became a U.S. Juryman.

Stone was convinced by a close friend A.C. Churchill to pose as him at the state Democratic Convention. Stone, a Republican, at first refused but then agreed. He voted per Churchill's instruction and was called upon, as Churchill, to speak. He pretended to speak as a good Democrat. The Democrat's nominee for Governor was elected. Pattison liked Stone's speech so much that Churchill received a Gubernatorial appointment.

Stone supported Beaver for Governor over Pattison. Beaver lost but won the next election as Governor.

In 1890, Stone went to a convention to nominate a candidate for Congress. Thomas Bayne was nominated but refused the nomination and recommended Stone instead. Stone was not expecting this, yet he was nominated. The press criticized him nomination as he had not been before the public when Delegates were elected. Stone asked for a second convention or else he wouldn't run. The party organization supported George Shiras, III. The organization unsuccessfully challenged seating some of Stone's supporters as Delegates. The Shiras Delegates attempted to walk out. The Chief of Police prevented this by bolting the door of the only exit. Stone was nominated and then elected.

In Congress, Stone sent a quart of whisky, found during an excavation in Pittsburgh, to the House Appropriations Chairman. That gesture helped preserve a Post Office in Allegheny County. Stone introduced a bill to restrict immigration.

Stone pushed Matt Quay for President in 1896. He got all but three Pennsylvania Republican members of Congress to pledge support to Quay. It was known that should McKinley be elected, a deal could be made to funnel Federal patronage through Quay. This deal was indeed reached between the McKinley and Quay camps.

Stone ran for Governor in 1897. Challenging him for the Republican nomination were John Wanamaker and U.S. Rep. Charles Stone. Wanamaker was opposed to Quay. Quay supported Stone. Some delegates suggested another candidate and promise their candidate would do what Quay asks. Quay replied "I would have to tell him and I wound not have to tell Stone. He would know what to do without telling." Stone was nominated.

Stone states his opponents Democrat George Jenks and Prohibitionist Dr. Swallow were able and good speakers. Swallow attracted many Republican votes, giving Jenks a better chance at winning. Boies Penrose and others spoke will on behalf of Stone.

The A.P.A., a powerful anti-Catholic organization elected Stone to its membership without informing him prior. Stone wanted both A.P.A. and Catholic votes. He declined to join as a candidate, stating it would look political if he joined while running for office.

Swallow was a member of A.P.A., a Mason, and a High Priest in the Hairless Goat, who believed the Catholic Church was behind the Lincoln assassination. This information was provided to Catholic voters to help Stone. Stone won easily.

Stone writes Quay did not ask Stone to make any appointments to his Cabinet. Quay did approve of who Stone selected.

As Governor, Stone faced anthracite coal mine strikes and a budget deficit. Stone approved legislation that changed Pittsburgh's government. He also approved a bill to build a Capitol building. He notes a fine building was created for less than what was budgeted. He states he had nothing to do with the furnishing of the Capitol which became a scandal.

Quay resigned as a U.S. Senator after being criminally charged with election law violations. Quay was acquitted. The legislature failed to elect a new Senator, Stone appointed Quay back to his old seat, but the U.S. Senate refused to seat him. The legislature eventually elected Quay to the seat.

Quay faced a dilemma when 20 allies asked to be appointed to a single state Supreme Court vacancy. Quay didn’t want to make 19 enemies by picking one. Stone offered a solution. Quay nominated all 20 and Stone rejected each. Stone instead appointed his law partner William Potter while Quay retained 20 friends

In 1903, anti-Stone forced supported Elkin for Governor. Quay supported Samuel Pennypacker. Stone writes that Elkin had a majority of Delegates but Pennypacker was nominated "by the most corrupt and shameless purchase of Delegates that the state had ever seen."

Friday, September 02, 2011

Back When Republicans (Did Not, Honest) Get Abortions

Jackson Taylor. The Blue Orchid. New York: Touchstone Book, 2010.

This novel is based upon real life story of the author's grandmother, Verna Krone. It is based on a year's research including hundreds of interviews and newspaper surveys as well as recollections of old family stories. What is presented is the intriguing story of a woman who struggled trying to survive from a low income background who becomes a nurse and immersed in a world different from her poor, rural upbringing. She becomes a nurse for a prominent physician. The book explores issues of racial understanding, with a white nurse working for an African American physician, Dr. Crampton. Dr. Crampton is a civic and political leader in part because he rallies the African American community to support the Republican Party machine of State Sen. Harvey Taylor. Dr. Crampton is also noted for the city's immense secret as the person to go for safe abortions, as opposed to a "butcher" in Steelton. Dr. Crampton is the abortionist to people connected to the Mayor's office, District Attorney's office, Police Departments, and even the White House of three Presidents, Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower.

Verna Krone herself has struggled through the trauma of having an abortion. She was a psychiatric nurse prior to working for Dr. Krone, where readers learn of the intense conditions at Harrisburg State Hospital. While working with Dr. Crampton, about 5,000 abortions were performed. While this was illegal, many physicians referred patients to Dr. Crampton. The city elite's and legal system looked the other way, in great part because his illegal secret was their secret.

Political Science students will appreciate reading some insights into the Taylor Machine. Afrian American voters were offered $2 per vote to vote for the Taylor ticket. People working for opposition candidates were greeting with physical violence. People who were dead or out of town still had votes cast in their names.

Readers interested in city planner and Harrisburg history will appreciate learning about the city's devastation of Harrisburg's 7th Ward and its removal of the poorest housing that removed many politically powerless African Americans from their homes, many of which had stood since the Civil War. Sen. Taylor sought to build many new state buildings on the 7th Ward. Dr. Crampton led support for this expansion, even though he privately was upset that this expansion would be across the street from his resident at 600 Forester Street. He told residents that Sen. Taylor promised to set aside 10 acres for residential use for all displaced by the Capitol area expansion. He promised the new residential spaces would be better than the ones they were leaving. Dr. Crampton boasted this his influence would save residents from a previous expansion when all the African American community received in return was land for two Y buildings. Dr. Crampton and the residents were tricked. What resulted were 70 units in Allison Hill for 200 displaced families to fight over. Many of the apartment prohibited children, leaving families totally displaced. On the other hand, a mansion that was displaced was lifted and moved around in order to make way for the renewal projects including a new bridge. The legislature named the bridge after Senator Taylor, the first time in Pennsylvania history the legislature named something after a politician still in office.

Tragedy strikes when an abortion is performed on a woman with pernicious anemia who bleeds to death. Dr. Crampton and Verna Krone are arrested for performing an abortion. Dr. Crampton at the time was 75 years old and his political influence was under attack from both within the African American Republican community and a growing sentiment for the Democratic Party among African Americans. Verna Krone threatens to name the 5,000 boy friends and husbands whose wives and girlfriends had abortions, including leading names in the prosecutor's office. The charges are dropped against Krone. Dr. Crampton is found not guilty, yet is devastated. He dies a few months later,

Harrisburg enthusiasts will appreciate reading the attitudes of the Harrisburg of decades ago. These were times when Dr. Crampton, as an African American, could get a drink but not a meal in the Penn Harris Hotel. Harrisburg was then a city with no higher education, where the author notes that youth with ideas leave. Capitol employees are noted for their pettiness and envy. Readers wishing to read a historic novel of Harrisburg should read this book.