The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the news this Fourth of July, President Reagan started a stock car race and asked Jesse Jackson not to try to free Andrei Sakharov. Walter Mondale interviewed an hispanic for the job of vice presidential candidate. There was a new and peaceful development toward continued stability in Lebanon. The Sovietambassador to the United States arrived in Moscow with a letter from President Reagan. And the torch was lowered from the Statue of Liberty, one of many things done today to mark the 208th birthday of the United States of America. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: The strains between Moscow and Washington is one of the stories we explore further tonight. Former U.S. Ambassador Malcolm Toon assesses the current state of U.S.-Soviet relations. Kwame Holman reports from the NAACP convention on the case of a black businessman who is suing McDonald's. We discuss why Air Florida went bankruptcy yesterday, stranding many passengers. We hear in detail about the renovation of the Statue of Liberty, and look back at how she became such a potent symbol of freedom. And we revisit three unusual people whose ideas contribute to the spirit of America.

President Reagan used July the 4th to launch a three-day campaign swing. He started in Florida and Alabama and goes on tomorrow to tour auto plants in the Detroit area and on Friday to Texas. In Daytona Beach, Florida, today he attended the Firecracker 400 stock car race. He started the event while still flying from Washington, telephoning from Air Force One the order, "Gentlemen, start your engines." The President arrived to see the end of the race and have a picnic lunch with the drivers and their families. "It's a wonderful Fourth of July, he said, "it's a real kick for me." In an interview broadcast this evening with Orlando television stations, the President cautioned to the Reverend Jesse Jackson that any attempt to try to free Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov might complicate efforts the U.S. was already making. Jackson has said he wants to visit Moscow to seek freedom for Sakharov, who had been exiled to the closed Soviet city of Gorky. Reagan said, "I do believe that to intervene in this very delicate matter on Sakharov ignores things that might be going on in the quiet diplomatic channels that we have going forward." In his first comment on the Reverend Jackson's recent visit to Cuba, the President said he suspected that Fidel Castro's decision to release 48 prisoners was politically motivated. He noted that the Logan Act made it illegal for unauthorized private citizens to negotiate with foreign governments, but he said Jackson would not be prosecuted. Jim? The Big Chill: Soviet Relations

LEHRER: It was another one of those "on the other hand" days for U.S.-Soviet relations. The Soviet ambassador to the United States arrived in Moscow with a letter from President Reagan to Soviet leader Chernenko. The exact contents are secret, but U.S. officials say it's a message about starting up some arms talks again. But, on the other hand, Soviet police detained two U.S. Embassy officials in Moscow for two hours. They were arrested while talking to an unnamed Soviet citizen and accused of activities inconsistent with diplomatic status. And the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Arthur Hartman, was prohibited today from delivering the traditional Fourth of July message to the Russian people. That also happened in 1977 when the ambassador was Malcolm Toon, who is with us tonight to assess all of this recent U.S.-Soviet activity. Mr. Ambassador, first, is it a big deal for the Soviets not to allow the ambassador to speak?

MALCOLM TOON: I think it's happened only three times, at least in the case of the American ambassador in recent years. It happened to me in 1977, as you've mentioned. It happened to Tom Watson, my successor when, I think, he mentioned the invasion of Afghanistan in rather uncomplimentary terms. And now it's happened to Art Hartman. So I welcome Art to the club.

LEHRER: What were you about to say that they objected to?

Amb. TOON: Well, I had a paragraph in my draft speech on human rights, as you know, I was serving as ambassador under President Carter, and one of the principal platforms of the Carter policy was human rights. And I had a paragraph in there which I thought was very well drafted, not in a way which I thought would be offensive to the Soviet Union, but at that particular time they were terribly sensitive about the human rights policy carried on by President Carter. They thought, wrongly, I think, that it was directed primarily at the Soviet Union.

LEHRER: Well, what is the procedure here? The U.S. ambassador writes a speech and then submits it to the Soviet government and they stamp "approved" or "not approved"?

Amb. TOON: No, it doesn't quite work that way. Things work in a very peculiar way in the embassy in Moscow. What I did, and I think it's probably the procedure that's followed now, was to draft the speech, turn it over to one of our local employees for translation, because it has to be done by a native Russian speaker; then, of course, we would check it very carefully to make sure that it was done properly. When you do that you automatically get it into the Soviet channel. I think you know what I mean. And therefore --

LEHRER: In other words, the local employee works -- is a KGB person, and gets his --

Amb. TOON: That's a reasonable assumption, I think, and then if you get invited by the Soviet authorities to make the speech, then you can assume that they have read the speech and approved it and found nothing objectionable.

LEHRER: That's weird.

Amb. TOON: But, in my case, I was invited to the studio, and I spent a whole morning wrestling with the Soviet authorities about the speech that I was about to deliver. First of all, they said, you know, "Why don't you do it in English?" And I said, "Look, that's ridiculous. Everybody in this country knows that I speak fluent Russian. I'm going to do it in the Russian language." "Well, it's too long." I said, "Well, all right, we'll cut it back." And I cut out a few paragraphs. "No," they said, "we want this paragraph cut out," the paragraph on human rights. And I refused to do it, and therefore I was not permitted to go on the air.

LEHRER: But the thing is you sit in a studio, and do you talk directly to the Soviet people? Is it literally a message to the Soviet people from the U.S. ambassador?

Amb. TOON: Yes, it is. You are on nationwide Soviet television, and there's about 270 or -80 million people, because everybody watches television in the Soviet Union. So I think it's a very effective way to get a message across to the Soviet people, but at the same time you've got to handle it in a way which will not offend Soviet sensitivities. And I thought I had done that, and I think Art Hartman felt the same way.

LEHRER: But the wire stories that I saw today did not say what it was, what the reason was. The Soviets gave no reason for not allowing him to speak, so we don't know at this point. The question also, the news today about the arrest of the two U.S. officials for talking to a Soviet citizen and accused of doing something that is undiplomatic. There is no way to know what that's all about either, is there?

Amb. TOON: Well, as I understand it, these two that were detained were named several months ago in the Soviet press as being tied with somehow or another with the Sakharovs and that may have something to do with that. But that's -- you know, that's a typically Soviet way of celebrating the American national holiday.

LEHRER: That's about all it should be attributed to?

Amb. TOON: Yes, I think so.

LEHRER: I see. The question about -- President Reagan said today that he didn't think -- his advice to Jesse Jackson was to not to try to go over and negotiate the release of Andrei Sakharov. What would the Soviets -- we know how the Syrians reacted when Jesse Jackson went there for Lieutenant Goodman, and we know what Fidel Castro did when he went there. You know the Soviets. What would they likely do if Jesse Jackson got off the plane and said, "Here I am, I want Sakharov?"

Amb. TOON: I don't think the Soviets are about to give Sakharov up to anybody, certainly not to Mr. Reagan, and probably not to Reverend Jackson. I would strongly recommend that if, in fact, Reverend Jackson carries this through then he should have some sort of assurance, if in fact you can get an assurance from Soviet authorities, that he will not come away empty-handed. I find it difficult to believe that the Soviets are prepared, after all they've gone through, to give up the Sakharovs at this point.

LEHRER: Well, they said that the reason Castro did what he did was he was motivated by a desire to embarrass President Reagan. Wouldn't the Soviets have the same -- maybe the same motivation here?

Amb. TOON: I can't believe that the release of Sakharov and his wife at this particular time would embarrass President Reagan. After all, we have been pounding the table now for a long time for the release of Sakharov. At least a more benign treatment of the Sakharovs. And if in fact this happens, even through the Jackson medium, then I think this would not redound to Reagan's disadvantage.

LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, what's your reading of the other side of the "on the other hand" development today -- Dobrynin carrying a letter from President Reagan and Chernenko. What do you think that -- what's involved here, do you think?

Amb. TOON: Well, first, let me just comment editorially on this, Jim. I think again we are making the mistake of using Dobrynin as a channel to the Soviet leadership. When we have an ambassador in Moscow it does seem to me that when you have a letter from the President of the United States to Chernenko, the Soviet leader, you ought to deliver it through the American ambassador. This is a fight that I carried on for three years when I was ambassador, and I think -- I take advantage of this opportunity to let the American public know that I feel very deeply about this, and I think, frankly, this is the wrong way to do it. But if, in fact, Mr. Reagan is trying to persuade Chernenko that we are prepared. in fact, to go to Vienna and open up these talks without any preconditions, and this is a successful move on his part, then I think it's all to the good.

LEHRER: Okay, just the fact of the letter itself doesn't mean that much, right?

Amb. TOON: No, I don't think so. Gromyko's last position just the day before yesterday was very tough indeed, and that was following the President's statement, in which he said we're not attaching any preconditions. But, in fact, and I think, frankly, tactically we handled it the wrong way. The President, I think, should have simply said, "All right, fine. We'll go to Vienna and we'll talk about weapons in space." And then at the same time let it be clearly understood in asides that we will raise whatever we want to in them, which is always true in all negotiations; you can raise any subject you want.

LEHRER: Do you think that -- one of the suggestions that has been made is that both sides really do want to have some talks for their own reasons, and they're just kind of sparring and that eventually this could lead to something, probably after the election, but it will lead to something.

Amb. TOON: Well, I think we should certainly want to talk about ways and means of keeping nuclear weapons out of space. And I think that this is not only to our advantage and our national interest, but I think the Soviets see it as being in their national interest. And therefore I would like to see us sit down and begin talks on this very vital area. Now, the other thing is that I think this is one way of reinstituting, or at least beginning the reinstitution of the dialogue, which I have felt very strongly is terribly important, between our two countries. I have long felt that the real threat to peace and stability in the world today is not the fact that we're armed to the teeth; it is the fact that one side might make a serious miscalculation. Now, you handle that sort of problem, it seems to me, by an on-going serious dialogue. We have not had a dialogue, except for occasional meetings between Mr. Shultz and Dobrynin and so forth, for a long time. I'd say for three years. And I think this is -- if in fact this reinstitutes the dialogue, that is a very welcome development from my point of view.

LEHRER: Ambassador Toon, thank you very much.

Amb. TOON: Thank you.

LEHRER: There was a most significant happening in Beirut, Lebanon, today. Troops of the Lebanese army deployed throughout the city to take up positions in both the Christian and Moslem sections, and nobody shot at them. The various and varied militiamen who have ruled the violent streets since 1975 were not to be seen. Chris Hardy of Visnews has more.

CHRIS HARDY, Visnews [voice-over]: The official phase of the new government's plan calls for the withdrawal of troops along the sensitive Green Line area. The move appeared to be carried out with little opposition from the warring factions. The Lebanese army moved in, taking over key positions. By mid-day the troops had established positions on or near the line over an eight-kilometer stretch. The security plan devised by the new national unity government is designed to separate the factions and bring a permanent end to the nine-year-old civil war, which has left more than 100,000 dead. The Lebanese army have moved into the port and the airport and other key installations. The operation has involved some 9,000 men, but it has gone smoothly. Both Muslim and Christian militiamen believe the new government needs support in its plans for a long-term cease-fire. The government plans to extend the takeover to the hills above the capitol, where Druse militiamen still hold positions opposite the army. Although small pockets of factional fighters are still in position in Beirut, the army expects to complete its operation within the next few days.

LEHRER: However, even the end of fighting in Beirut and the nearby mountains would not guarantee the end of the troubles in Lebanon. Last night there was heavy fighting between rival Moslem factions in Tripoli, the country's second-largest city. Robin?

MacNEIL: While President Reagan was hobnobbing with stock-car enthusiasts in Florida, his probable opponent this fall was politicking in another way at home in Minnesota. Walter Mondale met with San Antonio's mayor, Henry Cisneros, the sixth potential running mate he's interviewed. Cisneros, who is 37, was the first Mexican-American to become a mayor of a major American city. After their talk, the two appeared at a news conference.

WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential candidate: I think the fact that we are considering a person who happens to be of hispanic background says something that I want to say to the nation, and that is that as president I intend to open up this process. I intend to have a nation in which we open doors, as I said yesterday. But I'm going to pick the best person, and for the first time we have an nominee looking at people who would never have been considered in the past. And that's a point that I'm also making here today.

MacNEIL: Also on this Fourth of July, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has been holding its annual convention in Kansas City, and the delegates have addressed an issue that doesn't get as much attention as other civil rights. Correspondent Kwame Holman reports from the NAACP convention. Suing McDonald's

KWAME HOLMAN: While much of the discussion at this year's NAACP convention focuses on election-year politics, there are other matters on the agenda. One issue getting attention concerns business opportunities for firms that are owned or operated by blacks. Many NAACP members want major corporations to increase the amount of business they do with black-owned firms. At one workshop here called Fair Share, members heard speeches about improving opportunities for black businesses, including one speech by Los Angeles NAACP attorney Melanie Lomax about putting pressure on the McDonald's restaurant corporation

MELANIE LOMAX, NAACP lawyer: We think that when you examine the McDonald's corporation you'll see that although they have a lily-white, very wholesome, all-American image, that that image bears little reality to their corporate practices and that they have in fact been not only insensitive, but taken actions which have been significantly injurious to the interests of black America. I think that that's particularly true with respect to the black and minority business sectors.

HOLMAN: Melanie Lomax is talking about allegations that the hamburger chain is not awarding enough of its franchises to blacks. Recently we went to Los Angeles to look into those allegations.

[voice-over] This McDonald's restaurant is in a predominantly white neighborhood of Los Angeles. It is owned by a white man. This McDonald's is in a predominantly black neighborhood of Los Angeles. It is owned by a black man and staffed largely by blacks. The proprietor is Charles Griffiths, who owns four McDonald's in L.A. A year ago he filed suit against McDonald's Corporation, charging that the company deliberately has given franchises in white neighborhoods to whites and black neighborhood franchises to blacks. As proof --

CHARLES GRIFFITHS, McDonald's owner: I'm complaining about all the stores that they built from 1977 until March of 1983 that was built in the Los Angeles region that I was not even told about, based on my color. But I'm saying McDonald's discriminated against me each and every time they built a restaurant in a regional office and did not tell me about it based on the fact that I'm black.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: There is evidence of a racial pattern in McDonald's franchise system. Using information supplied by McDonald's Corporation, we developed this map. The red area indicates neighborhoods that are 95% black. The black dots indicate stores in those neighborhoods that are owned by blacks. The yellow dotsshow largely white-owned franchises in areas that are predominantly white. In Los Angeles, almost all McDonald's black-owned restaurants are in black neighborhoods. Local NAACP president John McDonald says the evidence is clear.

JOHN McDONALD, NAACP: It is obvious to look at who the owners are. You just plot it out. Do it yourself. And I ask everyone just to look at it, make your own decision.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: To McDonald's Corporation, the charges of racial discrimination are unfair. Don Horwitz is executive vice president of McDonald's.

DON HORWITZ, vice president, McDonald's Corporation: We provide more opportunities for minorities than any other fast-food company, any other food company, any other company in the United States. More people have become successful businessment at McDonald's that are minorities than any other business enterprise. We're proud of that.

HOLMAN: It is true that McDonald's is America's largest employer of black youth, but owning a McDonald's franchise apparently is a different story. There is a basic disagreement about the fairness of McDonald's policy of allocating store franchises. Charles Griffiths and other black owners say that policy is discriminatory. McDonald's says it is a philosophy that responds to community needs.

Mr. HORWITZ: We typically look for someone who can be Mr. McDonald's in his community, and that means that he's known in the community, he's respected in the community, and he's putting back into the community part of his profits. But part of it is getting business. That is, if he's part of his community group, if he is active in his church, if he can go into the school and talk to the school administrators, he can create business.

HOLMAN: If your philosophy is trying to bring in people into a store in a particular community who represent that community, doesn't that lend itself to having only black owners in black communities, only white owners in white communities?

Mr. HORWITZ: Not completely, but I think there is that propensity. But I think that at McDonald's it hasn't been the case. We want to put the best person in the best place to sell the most hamburgers. And that means we take a subjective view. We analyze the particular locale, analyze the people who are looking for that particular restaurant and select the best person.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: McDonald's calls it ethnically aligning, is what they call it. They don't call it discriminating. They don't call it putting blacks where blacks live.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Charles Griffiths says McDonald's franchise allocation philosophy has left him and other black McDonald's owners with older, more difficult to manage stores in less profitable black communities.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I've had two killings in my restaurant over here on King Street, and I've had one security seriously beatan and shot. And I say that they don't have that out in Burbank, Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. Not to the extent that we have it here.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: To find out if the Los Angeles situation is typical of the McDonald's chain nationally, we spoke to Lee Dunham, president of the McDonald's National Black Operators Association.

LEE DUNHAM, McDonald's owner: Let me speak about my experience, that I can live with. I opened the first store in Harlem, New York, which is 99% black. I opened my second store on 145th and Broadway, which is 99% black, I asked for additional stores out of that area. I was not given the opportunity to go out of my area. We'd like to have opportunity to gointo other areas where there is more profit. You see, in black areas we have 42 to 50 percent unemployment, whereby the average black makes $18,000 a year. The average white family is doing $35,000. So wouldn't you want to have your store in the area where the $35,000 is being earned, because they have more disposable income? So therefore that store in that area has got to make more dollars.

Mr. HORWITZ: It isn't just the sensitivity to race. It's sensitivity to who will sell the most hamburgers, and sometimes that could be a situation in the Southwest where it might be one kind of a person; in New York it might be another. But it takes into account all kinds of factors.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The whites in California or any other state are just as willing to buy McDonald's hamburgers provided that the hamburgers are hot, provided that the hamburgers are good, with fair service and the place is clean. And I say that I can do that just as effectively in a white neighborhood as I have shown that I've done in the inner-city neighborhoods.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Ironically, Charles Griffiths is fighting a franchise system that has made him a millionaire at the age of 39.

[interviewing] Does it feel strange at all for you to be fighting an organization that has made a rich and successful man out of Charles Griffiths?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Well, I might just tell you that McDonald's did not make me rich and successful. I was successful the day I left the cotton patch in Mississippi. Okay? And I was rich when I had enough sense to realize that I had to leave the cotton patch. I think that I had the ability, the incentive and the potential to be whatever I am without McDonald's.

MacNEIL: The NAACP says it will join Charles Griffiths' suit against McDonald's as a friend of the court. Meanwhile, the civil rights group is asking the corporation to increase the amount of business it does with black firms. The NAACP says that if no agreement is reached, it would consider asking black Americans not to eat at McDonald's. Jim?

LEHRER: A tragedy on this holiday. Fourteen people died and 15 were injured as a fire swept an aging rooming house in Beverly, Massachusetts, a city 25 miles north of Boston. The three-story, 35-room structure was inhabited by low-income tenants and former mental patients. The 80-year-old building had no sprinkler system, but authorities said the building met minimum emergency standards. The cause of the pre-dawn blaze is unknown. The fire chief said he believed it started in the front stairway, trapping the residents inside. A neighbor said people lived there simply because they had no other place to go. Robin? Air Florida: Bankruptcy

MacNEIL: Air Florida, which stopped flying and declared bankruptcy yesterday, said today it was working on a definitive plan to start flying again soon, but that was of little help to many air travelers who remain stranded at Miami International Airport. Many were wandering the Miami terminal with useless tickets and no money to buy fares on other airlines, some of which were refusing to honor Air Florida tickets. Some airlines, like Pan Am, were putting Air Florida passengers on standby. Air Florida yesterday suddenly canceled all flights to the 35 cities it serves in 13 countries. Air Florida is the third major airline to file for bankruptcy protection since May, 1982. The other two, Braniff and Continental, have resumed operations on a limited basis. Yesterday Continental reported its first quarterly profit in almost two years. Braniff, however, remains in the red. To explain why Air Florida is bankrupt and the financial condition of the industry as a whole, we have Agis Salpukas, a transportation writer with The New York Times. First of all, what lies behind Air Florida's bankruptcy?

AGIS SALPUKAS: For a time Air Florida could do no wrong. Edward Acker[?] came in as chairman in 1977, and with about $2 million in financing, rapidly built up the carrier under deregulation.

MacNEIL: If started as a tiny carrier, I reported last night, with three propellor-driven planes, a little commuter airline.

Mr. SALPUKAS: Back in '72; that's when it was founded. It was mostly limited just to flying in Florida. Well, Mr. Acker saw the possibilities of deregulation, and he extended the routes enormously to New York, and they also won the right to fly to London. And all this was done in a matter of about four or five years. He took a carrier that had revenues of $5 million when he came in in '77, and by 1981 it had revenues of $100 million and a profit of about $5 million.

MacNEIL: That's a huge growth, isn't it?

Mr. SALPUKAS: It is an incredible story in the airline industry.

MacNEIL: So what happened?

Mr. SALPUKAS: What happened is that 1981 Mr. Acker left to become chairman of Pan American World Airways, which were in trouble, and I think it was largely because of what he had done with Air Florida that he was chosen to help bail out Pan Am. But in Air Florida's situation, it had expanded very rapidly, and it was very fortunate for awhile, because it would only put in one or two flights into a market, which would not really bring a big carrier to come back at them. But as they grew, some of the larger carriers such as Eastern and Delta and so forth, began to realize that they were losing considerable amount of business to this airline, and one of the really big turnarounds was that Delta began a fare war that was designed, really, to push Air Florida back.

MacNEIL: And so they started undercutting Air Florida's fares?

Mr. SALPUKAS: Well, they cut the fares, not undercut. Air Florida was forced to match, many other carriers were forced to match, which were caught in this fare war.Eastern, for example, didn't really want to be part of it, but had to match the others.

MacNEIL: But wasn't the advantage under deregulation of being a young, aggressive new airline that you had much lower costs than the big established airlines, and you could really compete? How could big airlines like Delta and Eastern undercut Air Florida?

Mr. SALPUKAS: Well, you did have lower costs, but you also had to have -- attract a certain amount of customers to pay your bills.And when a carrier such as Delta -- if you had the choice of flying from New York to Miami on Air Florida, a carrier that you may not know much about, or Delta, you would naturally choose a Delta. And the loads that Air Florida was carrying went down considerably. At the same time, now, other carriers, other new carriers began to enter into this market. The Florida market is an incredibly competitive market.

MacNEIL: Now, are we going to see a pattern of this, of the established carriers, kind of in the second wave of the deregulation story, fighting back?

Mr. SALPUKAS: We're seeing it all over. We see it with American Airlines, which is -- has matched Braniff in its fares in Dallas. The large carriers now are willing to, even though there may be only two flights to a particular place, and the large carrier may have 10 flights, he will still match that fare in many cases.

MacNEIL: Now. Air Florida said today it had been working on this definitive plan to fly again soon. Can it, do you think?

Mr. SALPUKAS: I don't know. It's difficult to say. It has come out of numerous financial scrapes in the last two years. This last one, though, they may get the money somehow from some investor. My understanding is that they are looking for private -- you know, a big private investor, a group of investors.

MacNEIL: Because bankruptcy was good for Continental Airlines since I've just reported it made a profit. It's been good for Continental.

Mr. SALPUKAS: Right. But it also carries great risks. It was good for Continental because Continental was able to get out from its very high costs. Continental had very strong unions. Air Florida does not have any -- it only has one union, and most of its people are already at pretty low salaries, competitive salaries.

MacNEIL: So this evening those prople who were holding Air Florida tickets, it's a question mark whether those tickets tonight will be good again in the future?

Mr. SALPUKAS: I think it's a very big question mark because Air Florida has alienated a tremendous amount of travel agents by doing this, and it has also alienated many of the people that were flying it.

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Salpukas, thank you very much for joining us.

Mr. SALPUKAS: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Jim?

LEHRER: An update on a story of ours from last month. The Texas legislature did a very un-Texas-legislature-like thing yesterday. It raised taxes for the first time in 13 years. The tax package is one of the largest ever passed by any state -- some $4.8 billion over three years, and roughly 90% of it will go to upgrade the state's faltering public school system, mostly through reforms pushed by Texas businessman H. Ross Perot, who headed a blue-ribbon education panel and the Democratic governor of the state, Mark White. The reforms include both higher pay and a competency testing plan for teachers, plus restrictions on extracurricular activities for students and a mandatory exit examination in order to graduate from high school.

Still to come tonight on our Fourth of July NewsHour, a look at the history and the future of that lady in New York Harbor, the Statue of Liberty, and a second visit to three other Americans who have been with us before.

[Video postcard -- Jerome, Arizona]

LEHRER: Now to the birthday party, the 208th, of this country called the United States of America. There were thousands and thousands of 'em all over the country today, and they were as different as the tastes of the people doing the celebrating.Here in Washington, for instance, about a half a million or so people decided to go to the Mall, that expanse of land between the Capitol Building and the Lincoln Memorial to gather at the Washington Monument for music. [Beach Boys: "I Get Around"] Those were the Beach Boys, and for those with short memories, it was indeed the same Beach Boys who were banned from performing at last year's festivities on the Mall by then-Interior Secretary James Watt. he said they would attract an undesirable element, a statement that brought him flack from Vice President Bush and Mrs. Reagan, among others. Robin? Miss Liberty's Special Day

MacNEIL: Of all the symbolic events around the country to mark this Fourth of July, probably the most dramatic took place at the Statue of Liberty in New York. For the first time in 98 years, Ms. Liberty gave up her torch. It's all part of a program to save and restore the statue weakened by decades of wind and corrosion. Tonight we look more closely at the remarkable history and symbolism of the statue and at the work to preserve it. But first, today's events.

[voice-over] A crowd of about 4,000 people gathered on Liberty Island in New York Harbor as the engineers prepared to lift the 1 1/2-ton torch off its base and lower it 320 feet to the ground. It was the first step in a program to restore the statue by its 100th birthday in 1986. The keynote speaker was Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca, who heads a commission for observance of the centennial.

LEE IACOCCA, chairman of the Centennial Commission: -- themselves and for their children, Ms. Liberty still holds out that beacon of hope, and the immigrants still keep coming. Now they walk through miles of steaming jungle in Southeast Asia or they risk their lives in tiny boats to get here from the Caribbean, and they all come for the same reason our parents came. Not for a free ride or an easy life, but just for the chance to work and make their dreams come true for themselves and for their children.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: Then the torch was lifted off its base to the sound of "God Bless America."

[on camera] The Statue of Liberty, which now seems as imbedded in the American psyche as Mount Rushmore or Independence Hall, had very indifferent beginnings. In fact, at first the public cared so little about the idea it was hard to raise money for it. We look now at that early history through photographs currently on display at the New York Historical Society. The statue was born in France shortly after the fall of the Emperor Louis Napoleon in 1870.

[voice-over] It was the vision of Frederic Auguste Bartholdi, an Alsatian who specialized in mounmental sculptures. For Bartholdi, this colossal lady would beam the message of liberty, equality and fraternity around the world. Her official name was "Liberty Enlightening the World," and she was to be a birthday gift from France to America on this country's 100th birthday. Bartholdi gave the statue his mother's face, and he finished a plaster model in 1875. The French people quickly raised $400,000 and construction began in 1881. Bartholdi watched as workmen crafted wood and plaster in a Paris workshop. The Americans took longer to raise their portion of the funds, which were to pay for the building of the pedestal. To help raise American support for the project, Bartholdi sent a model of the right arm and torch to the Philadelphia centennial exhibition in 1876. For 50" you could climb to the top of the torch. In the summer of 1883, workmen assembled parts of Ms. Liberty in a Paris courtyard. Bartholdi had recruited the famous engineer, Gustav Eiffel, designer of the Eiffel Tower, to design the skeleton. He wanted to be sure the statue would stand up. So eiffel's iron skeleton supports the exterior copper casing. By 1886, the statue was completed. Bartholdi's crews packed it into 85 crates and shipped them to New York. Twenty years after he had the idea, she was dedicated, in 1886, in the spot in New York Harbor, just where Bartholdi had wanted her to be. Landscape painter Edward Moran captured that moment. Even Bartholdi could not have imagined what a powerful symbol his statue would become, or how that symbolism would change over the years. One person who has thought about the symbolism is Marvin Trachtenberg, professor of art history at New York University and author of a book on the Statue of Liberty.

MARVIN TRACHTENBERG, New York University: The original French conception was mainly concerned with France, not with America. And so Liberty Enlightening the World, which means -- you have to translate the word "enlightening." It doesn't mean "instruction" which is what we mean how. It meant -- in the 19th century it meant "illumination," Liberty Illuminating the World, Liberty's beacon as a kind of firebrand of revolution to move things in France. That's what they were concerned with -- liberty as a force of change in Europe, in the rest of the world. Which is something very different from what it became, you see. It became something much more intrinsically American.

MacNEIL [voice-over]: The immediate American response to the idea of the statue ranged from indifference to hostility. Bartholdi had to make two sales trips to the U.S. to convince Americans to raise money for the pedestal. Finally, Joseph Pulitzer, publisher of The New York World, spearheaded a campaign to raise the money. But it was the events of history which provided a new meaning for the statue. Bartholdi's monument was in the right place, New York Harbor, as the largest wave of immigration in U.S. history began.

Mr. TRACHTENBERG: Most of these people came through New York. Most of these people spent that week or two on the Atlantic not knowing what sort of a world they faced, but knowing that the first thing they would see was the Statue of Liberty. They knew that. They anticipated it. They eagerly awaited it. And it became the symbol, the signal, I should say, that they had arrived. And so that they interpreted it in a very different way from what the French had originally intended. The immigrants interpreted it -- or reinterpreted it, I should say, put their stamp on it -- as America welcoming -- America welcoming them. It continues to function as an emblem of welcome, and it continues, I think, most of all now -- I mean, this is the reason why it is so popular in this country; it really represents America. I mean, it became the symbol of America.

MacNEIL: Now, to tell us more about the massive renovation job on the statue, we have Ross Holland. He is director of restoration and preservation for the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation. Mr. Holland, first of all, why was the torch taken off today?

ROSS HOLLAND: The torch was taken off so that we could reconstruct it. That torch will not be repaired and put back on, but rather we will rebuild a brand new torch and put it back on.

MacNEIL: Why?

Mr. HOLLAND: It's in very bad condition. It's been damaged severely by rust, particularly the iron interior of it is damaged. And the plates themselves are not in very good condition. Perhaps more important, we are planning to change the torch. The flame of the torch presently is glass panes held together by thin bands of copper, and we're planning to go back to Bartholdi's original torch; that is, make the flame of copper and gild it. And we plan to work on it --

MacNEIL: And then shine lights on it so that it --

Mr. HOLLAND: That's right. Presently, of course, with the glass the light comes from inside. But we'll be lighting it from the outside.

MacNEIL: Does that mean it'll be brighter at night?

Mr. HOLLAND: We think it will be brighter at night, and certainly it'll be handsomer during the day.

MacNEIL: Now, I read today there was a possibility that the arm holding the torch might have to come off too. Is that right?

Mr. HOLLAND: That's a possibility, though generally we feel right now, until some tests are completed and give us different evidence, that the torch can be stabilized in place. It is in very bad -- the torch, I'm sorry, the arm. It is in very bad condition.

MacNEIL: I read that it sways in the wind.

Mr. HOLLAND: That's right. It moves about 15 inches in the wind up there, and so it's going to have to be stabilized. But we think we can do it in place without having to take it down.

MacNEIL: Now, what's the actual damage to the statue?

Mr. HOLLAND: Well, the main damage to the statue, of course, is time. And it was -- a lot of problems were built into the statue when it was first erected.

MacNEIL: Like what?

Mr. HOLLAND: Well, for example, the armature. The armature --

MacNEIL: What is that?

Mr. HOLLAND: The armature or bands of metal that come out from the frame of the statue and hold the plates of copper that compose the skin, sort of suspend them out there -- you can't have that copper supporting -- sitting on top of one another and being supported by the copper below because it's just too heavy a structure. So the armature sits out there and sort of suspends those plates and holds them there. The armature is made of wrought iron, and wrought iron is inferior to the copper. So where it's come into contact with the copper, the wrought iron has begun to rust and exfoliate, or expand. And it has pulled the saddles that hold the bands of iron to the skin -- have pulled them away from the skin, and therefore have pulled the boltheads through the copper skin.

MacNEIL: So if that just continued, you didn't do any thing about it, the skin could fall off in places?

Ma. HOLLAND: Eventually it would fall off; that's right. We are going to replace the armature with more modern material. We are going to use a special type of steel -- 360 nail, specifically -- and that's highly compatible with the copper so that we won't have that problem.

MacNEIL: But Eiffel's main skeleton inside, that remains sound?

Mr. HOLLAND: The pylon and the framework's in very good condition. About the only thing it needs to have done to it is to clean the paint off of it, the layers of paint off of it, and paint it again.

MacNEIL: Technology has changed a great deal in the 100 years since they began constucting this. What sort of miracles of modern technology were you able to use?

Mr. HOLLAND: Well, some interseting things we have been doing with it. For example, the paint on the interior of the copper skin, we felt we were going to have to remove that with a solvent.

MacNEIL: Why do you have to take it off, to begin with?

Mr. HOLLAND: Well, we want to get down back to the original copper. We want to find out what that copper is like. The paint and the bituminous material that's on it has not worked in protecting it, and we're just going to get back down to the bare copper. And to get the paint off we have gone to liquid nitrogen. It was suggested as a possibility, certainly to run a test on it, by one of the conservators of the National Park Service. We tried it out, worked beautifully. And as a result of using it, it speeded up the work considerably in removing the paint.

MacNEIL: What else are you --

Mr. HOLLAND: Well, we are experimenting right now with trying to get the bituminous material off of the interior, and we've done a number of things.

MacNEIL: That's the tar, is it?

Mr. HOLLAND: That's the tar. Right, yeah. It was put on there as a sealant, and you can see in some of the pictures of the exterior of the statue, you can see it seeping through the skin. We want to get rid of that, particularly on the outside, and certainly on the inside.

MacNEIL: How are you going to take that off?

Mr. HOLLAND: Well, we don't know precisely how we're going to take it off. We've been experimenting with a number of things. At the minimum we would be using -- or, I should say, at the maximum we would be using some sort of a vegetable material -- corncobs, walnut shells or something like that, and sandblasting it. Right now we're testing bicarbonate of soda, and trying to blast that off in a sandblasting technique.

MacNEIL: The copper skin is okay, is it? I mean, that's going to stay there when you've finished?

Mr. HOLLAND: Absolutely. The copper skin's in very good condition. The holes that you see in it are because of the boltheads, and we simply will put larger boltheads on the --

MacNEIL: It's going to be rededicated on the Fourth of July two years from now, is that correct?

Mr. HOLLAND: The Fourth of July, 1986.

MacNEIL: And when people go back, tourists go back to look at it then, what are they going to see different?

Mr. HOLLAND: About the only thing they will see different will be the torch. It will be the same green color, because that green color is the patina, and it has protected the copper. The copper itself is about the same thickness today as it was when it was put up nearly 100 years ago. So the only change, really, will be the torch itself. On the interior there will be a few things that will be visible; for example, the armature is going to be made out of a stainless steel, so that will have a different color than the current.

MacNEIL: You've been working on this for a long time, and you heard what was said a moment ago about the symbolism of it. What does it mean to you to be working on the Statue of Liberty?

Mr. HOLLAND: Well, it's, personally to me it's my last hurrah in historic preservation. I want to get back to being a historian and do research and writing. But it is -- it's a grand capper to my career -- 30-some-odd years in historic preservation -- to be able to manage this process of the restoration of the statue.

MacNEIL: Mr. Holland, thank you for joining us.

Mr. HOLLAND: Thank you for having me.

MacNEIL: Jim? Three Special People: Spirit of America

LEHRER: Finally tonight we revisit some old friends, people you've seen before on this program who have something special to say about this country. We begin with Paul Gruchow, a man who was raised on a Minnesota prairie farm, became a journalist and went off to work in cities like Minneapolis and Washington, D.C. Exactly eight years ago, he returned to live on the prairie. He's the managing editor of the Worthington Daily Globe in southwestern Minnesota, where he writes a weekly column of admiration for the land around him.

PAUL GRUCHOW, managing editor, Worthington Daily Globe [voice-over]: The prairie is like a daydream. It is one of the few plainly visible things which you can't photograph. No camera lens can take in a big enough piece of it. The prairie landscape embraces the whole of the sky. The prairie can't be appreciated anymore. It is too subtle, too vast, too intimate. It isn't accessible by automobile. You've got to get down on your knees to see some of its best features. And even in churches people don't get down on their knees anymore. To live on the prairie is to daydream. It is the only conceivable response to such immensity. It is when we are smallest that our daydreams come quickest.

One of the things I have tried to say in my own writing over and over again is that you have to be attached to a place, you have to be settled down into something, rooted into something, if you're ever going to do anything worthwhile as a human being. The prairie writers as a group of writers, including, I would hope, myself, have insisted that if we've got a problem with our national culture it's the problem that we have divorced ourselves from our bodies, and that begins when we divorce ourselves from the land. We turn into people who are all head, and very little heart. You can't be disconnected from a place and passionate about the world. You can't just float around in the atmosphere. You've got to be tied down somewhere. I feel tied down on this prairie. I wouldn't say that the way to become connected with the world again is to go to a prairie. The way to become connected with the world again is to find a place like my prairie -- it may be very different -- and then to become attached to it. That's the thing that counts.

LEHRER: Our next stop is Cabool, Missouri, population 2090, where we met a woman named Russell Simonson. Cabool is a place where people have that magic thing called civic pride, where they depend on themselves to get things done, and where most everybody in town does around singing a lot. All of the credit for the singing, and at least part of the credit for the rest goes to Russell Simonson.

RUSSELL SIMONSON [voice-over]: I was born and raised in Cabool, Missouri, and so my father was born here, and the family's been here since 1885. My mother used to play piano for the picture shows, we called it. My brother was very musical. Almost every night we'd play and sing.

Now, everybody get your pitch so you know where you're starting. Men? Ready.

[voice-over] I've been teaching singing classes about 20 years. When I first started the classes I used to charge 50" a lesson, which I thought everybody could afford, and then some of the times the kids would go get their money or something like that. And I finally thought, why don't I just say, if you'll sing in a church choir, you can come and have your lessons for free?

There's just a spirit to Cabool of helping each other. Somebody will say, "We need this," and others will say, "Well, let's." And before you know it, we've done it. This doctor that we had here, he saw that we really needed the nursing home, but no one quite knew how to do it. But we found that we could raise bonds and sell them to ourselves, and so we built the nursing home. I think one of the greatest things that we've done was the day-care center. Different firms in town gave them lumber, cement, shingles, everything, and the fathers came in with the labor and they built the day-care center.

LEHRER [voice-over]: The current project Cabool is the building of an agricultural vocational school, being done with contributed money, equipment and labor from the townspeople and nearby farmers. The school is also the special recipient of the proceeds from Old Times Day, an annual Cabool event that includes games, an auction and, of course, music, all of it for the purpose of fun and to raise money for whatever the town wants for itself at that time.

Ms. SIMONSON [voice-over]: I don't think the government should do everything for a community. To raise your taxes in order to do something is an expensive way to do things, and I think we do it the cheap way. And we do it ourselves, and we do what we need. And I think almost everyone in town feels that it's better if we can do it ourselves.

LEHRER: Out last old friend is Nathan Rappoport, a Polish-born sculptor who emigrated to this country in 1958, and is now an American citizen. We caught up with him in New York City, where he was finishing a sculpture for a new monument. He calls it "Liberation."

NATHAN RAPPOPORT, sculptor: How do I have to make him? What does he want? How should he be? I make him tall, strong, noble. It's a fusion between this wonderful young man and the weightless and almost lifeless body of a concentration camp prisoner. He came from a land of plenty to save Europe from tyranny. He restored life, freedom, joy. It's really a tribute to the American liberators. So I can't make him an Apollo, but he's beautiful in my eyes. I didn't make him, you know, a victor coming with a gun. He doesn't have a gun.He's a human being. He came to save another human being. A gentleman came here the moment he saw this sculpture, he said "It's me. It's me. They liberated me exactly like this. We should have gone to be dead in a few hours. In the last moment the American soldiers saved me." He started to cry, "It was me!" You know? So I think I had to do this. It was not a commission. Nobody asked me to do it. It just came out. I am working for 35 years. And it is just like an [unintelligible] of the whole, you know, at the beginning, of course, a man cries. You have to cry. Nobody can teach you how to cry. You are crying as it comes to you. And then little by little you don't have any more tears. And you can see more clearly what was it all about. And ask, "My God, but we forgot those who liberated us." We are crying all the time about ourself. It is about time to say thank you, and that's what I am doing. It's a tribute to the American Army, to the American people.

LEHRER: Nathan Rappoport's completed monument will be installed in Liberty Park, New Jersey, in May of 1985. Cabool has finished building its agricultural school, and the dedication ceremonies are scheduled for August. Today everyone there is enjoying an all-day bluegrass musical festival. And Paul Gruchow tells us he plans to spend the night watching fireworks light up the Minnesota prairie after the evening band concert in his town.

Good night, and Happy 4th, Robin.

MacNEIL: Same to you, Jim.Good night. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.