eoux
#,26e
M19	- —taps c.d>
%9,Se ay," 4,4.,

Oral History Interview with Gibson Prather
December 18, 1980. Washington, D.C.
By Pete Daniel
Prather: My name is John Gibson Prather. I've been press
secretary to Senator Morgan from 1975 until the present, six
years. I'm a native of Kentucky, who went to school there and
have spent practically all of my adult life in the newspaper
business. I worked on newspapers in Kentucky, in Florida, in Virginia
and in 1954 came to North Carolina as editor of the Daily News in
Jacksonville. After two years there, I moved to Fayetteville as managing editor of the newspaper there and stayed there as managing editor and later as the executive editor for the next twelve years.
I had thought perhaps that I would retire until Senator Morgan called me in 1974 and asked me if I would join his campaign to handle his press relations. I did that, and after he had won election to the United States Senate, he asked me to stay on his staff as press secretary, which I did for about three years in the Raleigh office and then came to Washington for the next three years.
It has been a very enjoyable experience working for Senator Morgan and I have handled practically all of his media contacts, have written the weekly newsletter, press releases, a weekly newspaper column, scripts for weekly radio braodcasts and

PRATHER	2
the latter of which were taped and distributed among the North Carolina stations. We've made a conscious effort to project a good image of the Senator, to honestly tell the people where he stood on issues that have arisen during his six years in office, and I think we have been fairly successful. This is being recorded now in late December as we are closing up the office and preparing to leave following his defeat in the general election in November.
DANIEL: Do you want to go on now to his campaign?
PRATHER: This recent campaign for the Senate in which Senator Morgan was the Democratic nominee and Dr. John East of East Carolina University was the Republican nominee, was probably the campaign in which I have had experience that saw more distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods as regarding Senator Morgan's position than any other campaign that I have ever encountered, and I have been through some rather, what I would call, dirty campaigns.
For instance, I was involved in what political analysts say was the second dirtiest campaign in United States history, and that was down in Florida when George Smathers beat Claude Pepper, the incumbent, in the Democratic primary. This campaign was unique, the Morgan campaign, that is. Professor East had the backing of Senator Jesse Helms and Senator Helms' political apparatus in North Carolina called the Congressional Club. He also had the active support of ultra-right wing organizations

PRATHER	3
from throughout the country who contributed money to his campaign. But the chief money raiser was the Congressional Club. Senator Helms has a mailing list of some 200,000 ultra-conservative people throughout the country to whom he is able to make appeals for money and they respond generously. I think without doubt the East campaign raised and spent at least two million dollars for television alone in North Carolina, which I think is a record as of this date in North Carolina politics.
They started early. Professor East needed some name recognition, and they saw to it that he got it early. He came on the television, it seemed, several times a day in all parts of the state hammering away at Senator Morgan's vote for the Panama Canal Treaty, for his vote to, as they said, give $75 million to the Marxist government in Nicaragua, and for what they said was his vote against the B-i Bomber. The statement that he voted for the Panama Canal Treaties was correct, although, as they put it, he voted to give away our canal, which was hardly the case. His vote, which they said was to give $75 million to Nicaragua, was not true. He voted to give a loan of $75 million to Nicaragua. The money was to be spent with the American private sector, the American business sector, and it was an attempt to counteract the effort of Fidel Castro and the Russians to move into Nicaragua.
The statement that he voted against the B-1 Bomber was an out and out lie; he did not. He supported the B-1 Bomber

PRATHER	4
until the time President Carter had cancelled the program,
and then he voted for an amendment which was proposed by Senator
Stennis, Chariman of the Armed Services Committee, to bring back
the money that had been appropriated for the bomber because it
wasn't going to be spent. They used this one single vote as
saying that he opposed the bomber, which was a flagrant mistatement--
but apparently effective.
Then there were other subtler nuances in the campaign.
Senator Helms came on the television more and more as the
campaign progressed talking about what a fine Christian Professor
East was, what a fine family man Professor East was, the implication
being that his opponent, Senator Morgan, was not.
We did not know it at the time, but the rumor was circulated,
especially in the rural eastern section of the state, that
Senator Morgan had a staff which was full of homosexuals. This
was an out and out lie, and they knew it; but apparently it was
effective because we had reports that on election day people who
had formerly supported Senator Morgan said they couldn't do it
this time because he had a great many gays on his staff. These
were the tactics that were used.
They spent a great amount of money to defeat Senator
Morgan, but as the Senator put it, after the defeat he would
rather run a campaign the way we ran a campaign and gotten
beat than to have run the campaign as they ran the campaign and
win, and they didn't win by much. Out of 1,800,000 votes, the

PRATHER	5
margin was about 10,000 votes. So now at this date, it seems
that the Moral Majority, which is a group of fundamentalist
churches and the ultra-conservative and the anti-abortionists
and the opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment and all these
splinter groups have united to elect the United States Senator
from North Carolina. It'll be interesting to see in the future
whether they can keep this momentum going and increase their gains
two years from now.
DANIEL: Can you think of anything during the campaign, any
crucial decision that the Morgan campaign staff made, that may
have cost the election, or was it the culmination of under-
estimating East's power and so forth?
PRATHER: I have racked my brain ever since the election, which
is about six weeks now, six weeks ago, to think of anything that
we did that might have contributed to the defeat or to think
of anything that we could have done that might have averted it,
and for the life of me I can't think of a thing. I think it was
a culmination of money, misrepresentations and I think also, Pete,
right at this time with inflation and unemployment and a fear
among the people that we are not as strong, as stong militarily
as we should be and that Russia has overtaken us that they are
very unhappy with Washington. I think that's the reason for
some fifteen Senators being defeated all over the country this
year, that, and the fact that similar tactics were used against
these other Senators just as they were used against Senator Morgan.

PRATHER	6
DANIEL: Since you are a newspaper man, what do you think about the power of television? I mean, because he spent a lot of money on television the power of television to persuade people of an image even though there is no substance behind it.
PRATHER: I think the power of television today is rather frightening. It used to be that if you got a newspaper's editorial endorsement, it was a meaningful thing in almost any part of the country. In this past election, Senator Morgan got every major newspaper in North Carolina and a great many of the
smaller newspapers in North Carolina to endorse him for reelection. Apparently that didn't mean a thing. I don't
think that John East got a single endorsement editorial from any paper in the state, and yet by buying time on television, by spending $2 million on television, by hammering home these distortions, misstatements, and lies, ad infinitum, apparently it was far more effective than anything the newspapers could do. DANIEL: Were people just helpless before that kind of barrage, to think independently as in the past when they would read a newspaper and think about issues and weigh them more carefully? PRATHER: Well, I don't think people are reading newspapers like they used to, and I think even less of them are reading the editorial pages, and I just feel like this television is a monster we've created and we just don't know how to handle yet. Apparently, the people who are opposed to the philosophies that

PRATHER	7
seemed to prevail in this last election are going to have to find some way to combat this, but right now I don't know what it is. DANIEL: Maybe we ought to go back and let you talk about Robert Morgan, since you have known him for a long time and maybe give an assessment of him as a politician and as a Senator.
PRATHER: I have known Robert Morgan intimately for the last six years, and I consider him to be an outstanding public servant. Some of his strengths, however, as far as his public image is concerned, are also some of his weaknesses and possibly contributed to his defeat in this election. As a United States Senator, Robert Morgan wanted to examine every side of each issue that came up before he would take a stand. This policy as opposed to some members of the Senate, such as our own Senator Jesse Helms, who would rush into print and into television with a statement
blasting the issue, which he would consider unpopular the minute it was proposed before looking at it closely. Senator Morgan wouldn't do this and sometimes would not make up his mind until shortly before a decision was going to be made, saying that he wanted to study all the issues involved in the question and wanted to hear the debate on the matter before he made the decision.
While this is commendable and while I think it is proper and prudent, it tended to make him appear indecisive in the eyes of a lot of people, and we got complaints that he appeared to be an indecisive person when in a matter of fact, he was merely trying to be responsible and to examine all the sides of the issue.

PRATHER	8
As a politician, he is not a great speaker, but he is an effective speaker. He is an extremely good one on one political operator. I am satisfied if he could have sat down and talked to enough people during this last campaign that he would have won, but unfortunately he couldn't do that, although he talked to as many as he could. He is a compassionate man and possibly hurt himself some with the voters, given their frame of mind right now, by his refusal to condemn such things as welfare, food stamps, and other social programs which seemed to be in disfavor because of the fact people feel that their taxes are high and inflation is cheapening their dollars. Although these were not politically popular this year, Senator Morgan refused to waiver in his support of helping people who needed help, and I am afraid these people are in for a rough time with this Senate that's coming in.
Just some examples of Senator Morgan's absolute belief in hearing all sides of an issue are one or two cases which have happened during the past few years. There was a bill which was backed by organized labor, called the Labor Reform Bill, which was probably more bitterly fought by businessmen in the nation and in North Carolina than any other measure that arose during these six years. Chambers of commerce, business associations, industrialists, even small businessmen mounted a concerted campaign all over the country and this included North Carolina in opposition to this bill. Senator Morgan was under heavy stress and under heavy heavy pressure from these groups to oppose this bill from the start.

PRATHER	9
He went before the chambers of commerce in various towns and
spoke during this time. During question and answer sessions
that followed, immediately the questions would start pouring in
about the Labor Reform Bill and what was his position on it.
He refused to commit himself even in view of this violent pressure
until he had had a chance to look at the bill from every side and
from every angle. This brought him criticism, heavy criticism,
from business interests from all over the state.
I remember one day, the president of a large utility in
North Carolina had one of his assistants call me and tell me that
it was extremely urgent that he see Senator Morgan that day,
and that he had some news that the Senator would welcome. So I
called Senator Morgan who was in Lillington, and he agreed
to meet this man in his law office. The utility president
got out of his car, walked into the office, and the first thing
he said was, "Robert, you have got to oppose this Labor Refore
Bill." Well, this was not exactly what he had told me he had
wanted with the Senator, and to the Senator's credit, he grew
angry and told the man to leave his office.
The Senator got upset several times by the pressure that
was put on him, and at one point, I believe in Hickory, told the
chamber of commerce up there that if they didn't want a Senator
who could think for himself, then they better send somebody else
to Washington. In the end he voted against the Labor Reform Bill
because he didn't think it was in the national interest, and he
thought it gave labor too much power. But this is just one example

PRATHER	10
of his insistence on stqdying an issue before taking a stand. He considered this responsible; I think it's responsible, but it is not always popular.
Another example of Senator Morgan's principle of looking at each side of an issue, which might have made him appear indecisive in some minds, was when the vote to extend the life of the Equal Rights Amendment for another three years was brought before the Senate. The Equal Rights Amendment had been ratified by all but three states, and time was running out to get the additional three states that were needed. The legislation which was offered would have been to extend for three years the time during which ratification could have been achieved.
Senator Morgan had favored the Equal Rights Amendment from the start, but in this particular bill there was an amendment offered which would have allowed states which had already ratified the amendment to change their minds during this three year period. The opponents of ERA, including Senator Helms, the other North Carolina Senator, had blasted the extension from the start. Senator Morgan favored the extension, but on the matter on what they called recision, which would have allowed some of these
other states that had ratified the amendment to change their mind, he felt that if the legislatures in these states wanted to vote again and to withdraw the support they had issued, that they should have a right to do so during this three year period.
I happen to be sitting with Senator Morgan the day that the bell rang for the vote on this question, Also present on that day

PRATHER	11
was Charles B. Winberry, a Rocky Mount attorney and a close associate
of the Senator. In fact, he had managed the Senator's campaign
in 1974 when he was elected to the Senate. Mr. Winberry and I
urged the Senator to go down and vote to extend the life of
the ERA and to allow it to have more time for ratification, but
he told us, "I am not sure it's constitutional if we don't allow
these other states to change their mind."
He was aware of the intense political pressure that was
being brought from both sides, and he knew that he was in a no
win situation. Although his heart was with the proponents of ERA
and had been from the start and his wife had campaigned actively
for ERA in North Carolina, he walked to the door and turned
around and looked at me and he looked at Mr. Winberry and just
shook his head, and then he walked on over to the Senate Chamber
to vote. Well, Mr. Winberry looked at me and I looked at
Mr. Winberry, and he said,"how is he going to vote?"	And I
said, "I'll be damned if I know." Well, he went over and wrestled
with his conscience and his conscience won, and he voted for what
he thought was the constitutional way to vote and voted against
it, although he favored the proposition generally. I think this
is just the measure of the man. He has always been strong for the
Constitution, and he doesn't believe in tampering with the
Constitution and putting in amendments to the Constitution unless
it is something very very vital. But he feels like the Constitution
is the supreme law of this country, and he just couldn't go over
there and vote for something that he felt was unconstitutional,

PRATHER	12
even though Mr. Winberry and I tried to tell him that the
politically popular thing to do was to vote the other way.
Another little added chapter to that story was that after
the vote the television station had called and asked if they
could interview the Senator out on the Capitol lawn, and he and
I started over to the Capitol lawn to do the interview. On the
way we met Mrs. Phyllis Shafly, who was the leader of the
anti-ERA forces and still is. She saw the Senator and ran up
and threw her arms around him and said, "Oh, thank you, Senator,
for your vote." Of course, she didn't know that he had voted
that way just because he felt the Constitution was being violated.
But to show you what effect on him she'd had, after she walked away
he looked at me and said, "Who was that woman?"
One of the biggest disappointments Senator Morgan had
during his six years was the case of Charles B. Winberry, who
had been his campaign manager. Mr. Winberry is a Rocky Mount
lawyer. Senator Morgan recommended him to be a federal judge
in the United States North Carolina Eastern District. There
was a vacancy there, which was created by the retirement of Judge
John Larkins,and also a new judgeship was created under the
Omnibus Judge's Act a couple years before. Mr. Winberry's name
was submitted to the Justice Department and to the President as
Senator Morgan's recommendation for one of those judgeships.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation looked into Mr. Winberry's
background and gave him a clean bill of health. The American Bar

PRATHER	13
Association Committee, which screens applicants for judgeships, wrote a letter saying that they endorsed him. Then the President sent the nomination over to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that's where it ran into some trouble. The staff of the Judiciary Committee, it seemed, soon became opposed to Mr. Winberry's nomination, and some questions arose as to his role as an attorney in some cigarette smuggling cases. One of the defendants in a smuggling case had bragged to people in and around Wilson that he had bribed Judge Larkins, who was the presiding judge in the case, and that Mr. Winberry had been the conduit through which they money was given to Judge Larkins. The man had been given a suspended sentence.
The committee staff, which apparently did not want Mr. Winberry confirmed, set to work to defeat his nomination. The committee staff, which was pretty well running the Judiciary Committee since Senator Kennedy was out campaigning for President soon became actively opposed to Senator Morgan's candidate for the judgeship, Mr. Winberry. We had reports, which I believed to be true, that one of the investigators for the committee, a man named Carmine Bellino, made the statement in a staff meeting, "Well, I don't care if we don't have proof; he's a crooked son of a bitch, and I'm going to get him." They got him.
Two Senators, Senator Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, and Senator Hatch, a Republican from Utah, were the two Senators who attended hearings on Mr. Winberry. The staff was able to

PRATHER	14
bring up people who had been convicted of felonies, cigarette smugglers, to testify against Mr. Winberry. No substantive proof was ever offered that he had bribed Judge Larkins, and anybody that knows Judge Larkins would know what a silly thing that is because you couldn't bribe him with any amount of money. He had never had any blemish on his long long career on the federal bench.
There were allegations that Mr. Winberry had directed his client to withhold evidence; these were never proved. None of these allegations were ever proved, and yet a coalition of Republicans joined by a few Democrats was able to defeat the nomination in committee. Subsequently, Senator Morgan, who said that this action by the committee shook his faith in the system more than anything else that has happened to him while he was here, asked the North Carolina Trial Lawyers to take the case record and investigate it, examine it, and to write their opinion as to how the case was handled. They found that Mr. Winberry had not been given fair treatment. One example of that was Senator Kennedy, who voted against Mr. Winberry by proxy, although he had never read the record and never been present at any of the hearings--hadn't even been to Washington.
This hurt Senator Morgan, I think, more than any one thing that happened to him during the six years he was here. Because he felt not only that his personal recommendation had been turned down, which was something of an insult, but that the whole

PRATHER	15
system itself had been abused, and he is a great believer in our system of government.

INTERVIEW WITH GIB PRATHER		44a
DECEMBER 18, 1980		
GIB: My name is John Gibson Prather, I've been Press Secretary to Senator Morgan from 1975 until the present, six years. I am a native of Kentucky, who went to school there and I spent practically all of my adult life in the newspaper business. I worked on newspapers in Kentucky, in Florida, in Virginia and in 1954/r/came to North Carolina as Editor of the Daily News in Jacksonville. After two years there, I moved to Fayetteville as Managing Editor of the newspaper there and stayed there as Managing Editor and later as the Executive Editor for the next twelve years. I had thought perhaps that I would retire until Senator Morgan called me in 1974 and asked me if I would join his campaign to handle his press relations. I did that and after he had won-the election to the United States Senate, he asked me to stay on his staff as Press Secretary, which I did for about three years in the Raleigh office and then came to Washington for the next three years. It has been a very enjoyable experience working for Senator Morgan, and I have handled practically all of his media contacts, have written the weekly newsletter, press releases, titetweekly newspaper column, scripts for weekly radio broadcast and television broadcast,& the latter of
anner5
which were tape and distributed along? the North Carolina stations.
made a concious effort to project a good image of the Senatorian-d‘to honestly tell alethe people where he stood on issues that have arisen during his six years in office and I think we have been fairly successful. This is being recorded now in late December as we are closing up the office and preparing to leave following his defeat in the general election in November.
DANIEL: Do you want to go on now to the campaign?
GIB: This recent campaign for the Senate in which Senator Morgan was
6-1 •GS/ Co oh
the Democratic nominee and Dr. John East4was the Republican nominee, was
We KC

GIB PRATHER	2
saw'
probably the campaign in which I have had experience that -ereimore
distortions, misrepresentations,and outright falsehoods as regarding Senator Morgan's position than any other campaigns than I have eier encountered andI have been through some rather, what I would call, dirty campaigns. For instance, I was involved in what political
analysts say was the second dirtiest campaign in ti14United States
s rd.", rhP s
history,and that was down in Florida when George F_at1er beat
Claude Pepper the incumbent, in the Democratic primary. This campaign was unique, the Morgan campaign that is. ,T-14-6.- Professor East had the backing of Senator Jesse Helms and Senator Jesse Helms' political apparatus in North Carolina called the Congressional Club. He also had the active support of ultra-right wing organizations from throughout the country who contributed money to his campaign. But the chief money raiser the Congressional Club, Senator Helms has a mailing list of some 200,000 pl-Qaultra-conservative people throughout the country
to whom he is able to make appeals	7 -t416 for money and they respond generously. I think without doubt/the East campaign raised and spent at least two million dollars for television alone in North Carolina,
("A
which I think is thi record as of this date in North Carolina politics.
needled- 5 "'"e
gliThey started early. Professor East madf name recognition and theyMe
to thathe got it early. He came on the television itseemed,several times a day in all parts of the State hammering away at Senator Morgan's vote for the Panama Canal Treaty, for his vote,as they said, give seventy-five million dollars to the marxist government in Nicaragua, and for what they said was his vote against the B-1 Bomber. The statement that he voted for the Panama Canal Treaties was correct, although)as they put it, he voted to give away our canal, which was

GIB PRATHER	3
hardy the case. His vote,which they said was to give seventy-five
million dollars to Nicaragua,was not true.	He voted to give a
loan of seventy-five million dollars to Nicaragua. The money was to
be spent with the American private sector, the American business sector,
ci,„d	itt/S5i-i*drts
and it wasp attempt to counteract the effort of Fidel Castro to move into Nicaragua. The statement that he voted against the B-1 Bomber was an out and out lie; he did not he supported the B-1 Bomber until the time President Carter had cancelled the proaram,and then he voted for an amendment which was proposed by Senator Stennis, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee,to bring back the money that had been appropriated for the bomber because it wasn't going to be spent. They used this one single vote as saying that he opposed the bomber, which was a flagrant mistatement.' But apparently was effective.
bfi
then there were subtler nuance in the campaign. Senator Helms
came on the television more and more as the campaign progressed talking about what a fine Christian Professor East was, what a fine family man Professor East was., ;The implication being that his
/fr
opponent, Senator Morgan was not. We did not know it at the time,
but the rumor was circulated, especially in the rural eastern section of the state, that Senator Morgan had a staff which was full of homosexuals. This was an out and out lie and they knew it.but-i-t-'
0),1
apparently was effective because we had reports/I-at-et:1.r election day
people who had formerly supported Senator Morgan said they couldn't do it this time because he a great many gays on his staff. These
?"-
were the tactics that were used. They spent a great amount of money
to defeat Senator Morgan, but as the Senator put it, after the defeat

GIB PRATHER	4
he would rather run a campaign the way we ran a campaign and gotten
4
beat; than ton run the campaign as they ran the campaign and win;and
they didn't win by much. Out of a one -ff4444441.11ftelined thousand
t2,000
votes, the margin was about taa-4.11a4ad	So now at this date, it
seems that the moral majority, which is a group of fundalmentalist
ciwraf?es
~~41irkic3 and the ultra-conservatives and the anti-abortionists and the
"IPS
opponents of the equal rights amendments and all these
have united to elect the United States Senator from North Carolina.
It'll be interesting to see in the future whether they can keep this
momentum going and increase their gains two years from now.
DANIEL: Can you think of anything during the campaign, any
,,,d	C. PS- 1\4*
crucial decision that the Morgan Campaign Staff made,,may have Qa,u-sed
obelitn "S d e 0/1-rtt64 Dv%
_,Ilz-4,..ee.iTla or a eem4.14.11-1 of underestimating East power and so
A
forth?
GIB: I have racked my brain every since the election which is about six weeks now, six weeks ago, to think of anything that we did that might have contributed to the defeat or to think of anything that we could have done that might have averted it,and for the life of
ctiimernet•hirv%
I can't think of a thing. I think that' it was aG,walaimiaat4-..eft of money,
misrepresentations and I think also,Pete, right at this time with inflation and unemployment and a fear among the people that we are not as strong/ as strong militarily as we should be and that Russia
INA4 ait et kick."
ise-ovlor4.akio9 us ax re that they are very unhappy with Washington
I think that's the reason for some fifteen Senators being defeated all over the country this year, that, and the fact that similar tactics were used against these other Senators just as they were used against Senator Morgan.

GIB PRATHER	5
PETE DANIEL: Since you are a newspaper man, what do you think about the power of television, I mean, because he spent a lot of money on televisionc/The power of television to persuade people of an image,' even though there is no substance behind it.
GIB: I think the power of television of today is rather frightening. It use to be that if you got a newspaper editorial endorsement, it was a meaningful thing in almost any part of the country. In this past election, Senator Morgan got every major newspaper in North Carolina and a great many of the smaller newspapers in North Carolina te'
)
endorse Sue-fka4o-MerTiap for reelection. Apparently that didn't mean
a thing. I don't think that John East got a single endorsement editorialjfrom any paper in the State) and yet by buying time on television/ -errrd spending two million dollars on television, by hammering
app
home these distortions, misstatements and lies, ,ocd. infinitum, apparant-
-
c.,447/46"A'
ly it was far more effective than,the newspapers could do.
PETE DANIEL: Were people were just helpless before that kind of baage,
to think independently as in the past, as they would read a newspaper
and think about issues and weigh them more carefully?
GIB: Well, I don't think people are reading newspapers like they use
to and I think even less of them are reading the editorial pages and
e
I just feel like this television is a monster we created and wepdon't
know how to handle it yet. Apparently, the people who are opposed to seemed rt philosophies seemed to pevail in this last election are going to have to find some way to combat this, but right now I don't know what it is.
PETE DANIEL: Maybe we ought to go back and	let you talk about
Robert Morgan, since you have known him for a long time and maybe give an assesment of him as a politician and as a Senator.

GIB PRATHER	6
GIB:	I have known Robert Morgan intimately for
Tht last six years and I consider him to be an outstanding public servant,
Some of his strengths, however, as far as his public image is concerned,
are also some of his weaknesses and possibly contributed to his defeat
in this election. As a United States Senator, Robert Morgan wanted
to examine every side of each issue that came up before he would take
a stand. This policy as opposed to some members of the Senate, such
as our own Senator Jesse Helms, who would rush into print and on--lo
television with a statement blasting the issue, which he would con-
4c.11‘
sider unpopular the minute iti,proposed before looking at it closely,
Senator Morgan wouldn't do this and sometimes would not make up his
1-15
mind until shortly before a decisionlaasnmade, saying that he wanted to study all the issues involved in the question and wanted to hear the debate on the matter before he made the decision. While this is commendable and while I think it is proper and prudent, it tended to make him appear indecisive in the eyes of a lot of people, and we got complaints that he appeared to an indecisive person when in a ma-O'er-of-fact, he was merely trying to be responsible and tried to examine all the sides of the issueX. As a politician, he is not a great speaker, but he is an effective speaker, he is an extremely good one on one political operator, and I am satisfied if he could have sat down and talked to to enough people during this last campaign/ that he would have won, but unfortunately he couldn't do that)althoughi he talked to as many as could. He is a compassiate man and possibly hurt himself some with the voters given their frame of mind right now by his refusal to

GIB PRATHER	7
condemn such things as welfare, food stamps, and other social programs which seemed to be 4 disfavor because, the fact people feel that their
taxes are high and t	a-e inflation is cheapening their dollarsa41.4‹. although these were not politically popular this year, Senator Morgan refused to waiver anysupport of helping people who needed help,and
5*(a.
I am afraid these people are in for a rough time with this garlator-t that's coming in. Just some examples of Senator Morgan's absolute
eit-os--40 u" 04
belief e, hearing all sides of an issue are one or two 	ales-mat
ha V P	cA/hie4 wG has-happened during the past few years. There was a bill backed by
k
r 61.11
Organized Labor, called the Labor Reform Bill, which was Amore bitterly
a
fought by businessmen in the Nation and in North Carolina th4n any
other measure that arose during these 1-..a.ssix years. Chambers of Commerce, usiness Associations, Industrialists, even small business-
mouote
men merited a conZerted campaign all over the country and this
included North Carolina an opposition to this bill. Senator Morgan was under heavy; heavy stess and under heavy,' heavy pressure from these groups to oppose this bill from the start. He went before the Chambers of Commerce in various towns and spoke during this time) and during questionp and answer sessions that followed, immediatelY,r),A questions would start pouring in about the Labor Reform Bill and what his position ond- He refused to commit himself even in view of this violent pressure until he had had a chance to look at the bill from
every side andievery angle ,a-	this brought him criticism, heavy
criticism from business interest,,from all over theigtate. I remember one day, the Oresident of a large utility in North Carolina had one of his assistant5td' 
call me and tell me that it +4a-tottsextremely
•

GIB PRATHER	8
urgent that he see Senator Morgan that day,and that he had some news
cA,414r
thdthe Senator would welcome. So I called Senator Morgan,--e was in Lillington and he agreed to meet this man in his law office. The Utility resident got out of his car,,a4ad walked into the office and the first thing he said was, Robert, you have got to oppose this Labor Reform Bill. Well, this is not exactly what he had told me he had wanted with the Senator and to the Senator's credit, he grew angry and told the man to leave his office. The Senator got upset several times by the pressure that was put on him and at one point, I believe in Hickory, told the Chamber of Commerce up there that if they didn't want a Senator who could think for himself, then they better send somebody else to Washingtons jn the end he voted against the Labor Reform Bill because he didn't think it was in the4ational interest and he thought it gave Labor too much power. But this is just one example of his insistance on studying an issue before taking a stand. He considered this responsible, I think its responsible, but it is not always popular. Another example of Senator Morgan's principle of looking at each side of an issue, which might have made he appear indecisive in some minds, was when the vote to extend the life of the equal rights amendment for another three years was brought before the Senate, the Equal Rights Amendmentp had been ratified by all but three states and time was running out to get the additional three states that were needed. The legislation which was offered would have been to extend for three yearsithe time during which ratification could have been achieved. Senator Morgan had favored the Equal Rights Amendment from the start, but in this particular bill

GIB PRATHER	9
there was an amendment offered which would have allowed State which
had already ratified the amendment to haves' changed their minds during
this three year period. The opponents of ERA, including Senator
Helms, the other North Carolina Senator, had blasted the extention
from the start. Senator Morgan had favored the extention, but on the
matter on what they called recision, which would have allowed some o-F
the& other iXtates that had ratified the amendment0 to change their mind,
he felt that if the legislature,in these/gtates wanted to vote again
S 1404)61. ir....".44
and to withdraw the support that they had issued, that theyA	-the
right to do so during this three year period: I happen to have been sitting with Senator Morgan the day that the bell rang for.t-e- vote on this question. Also present on that dayi was Charles B. Winberry,
a Rocky Mount Attorney and a close associate of the Senators in fact,
y
he had managed the Senator's campaign in 1974 when he was elected to the Senate. Mr. Winberry and I urged the Senator to go down and vote to extend the life of the ERA and to allow it to have more time for ratification, but he told us, I am not sure its constitutional if we don't allow these other States to change their mind. He was aware of the intense political pressure that was being brought from both sides, and he knew that he was in a no win situation0,a.mtalthough his heart was with the proponents of ERA and had been from the start and his
wife had campaigned actively for	ERA in North Carolina, he walked
to the door and turned around and looked at me and he looked at
Mr. Winberry and just shook his head/and then he walked on over to the Senate Chamber to vote. Well Mr. Winberry looked at me and I looked at Mr. Winberry,and he said, how is he going to vote, and I said, I'll be damned if I know. Well, he went over and wrestled with

GIB PRATHER	10
with his conscience and his conscience won/and he voted for what he thought was a constitutional way to vote and voted against it, although
cp „v.'s 'Aro-
he favored favored the pee-i-t4op generally. I think this is just 4.:,er measure the man, he has always been strong for the constitution and he doesn't believe in tampering with the constitution and putting in amendments to the constitution unless it is something very, very vitals but he feels like the constitution is the supreme law of this country,and he just couldn't go over there and vote for something that he felt was unconstitutional.andeven though Mr. Winberry and I tried to tell him that the politicaI.,popular thing to do was to vote the other way,and-another little added chapter to that story was that after the vote the television station had called and asked if they could interview the Senator out on the Capitol lawn and he and I started over to the Capitol lawn to do the interview. On the way we met Mrs. Phyllis
a:Act
Shafly, who was the leader of the1ERA forces and still ism she saw
the Senator and ran up threw her arms around him and said, oh thank you Senator for your vote) and 'of course, she didn't know that he had voted that way just because he felt the constitution was being
violated. But to show you what affect on him she had after she had
he 14:41401	11. •-vv54.-	52'
walked off,A he said, who was that woman? One of the biggest disapoint-
/Lc
ments Senator Morgan had during his six years was/ case of Charles B.
Winberry, who had been his 'ampaign kanager, Mr. Winberry is a Rocky Mount Lawyer), Senator Morgan recommended him to be a Federal Judge in the United States, North Carolina Eastern District,, there
was a vacancy there, which was created by the retirement of Judge
014^1144,1$
John Larkin and also a new judgship was created under the Q441Q4aue

GIB PRATHER	11
Judge's Act a couple years before. Mr. Winberry's name was submitted to the Justice Department and to the President as Senator Morgan's recommendations for one of those Judgeships. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation looked into Mr. Winberry's background and gave him a
Comp0446,
clean bill of health& the American Bar Association which screens
applicants for Judg'ships, wrote a letter saying that they endorsed him,, but then the President sent A nomination over to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that's were it ran into some trouble. The staff of the Judiciary Committee, it seemed,soon became opposed to Mr. Winberry's nomination,and some questions arose as to his role
reW	II,
as an Attorney in some cigarette	cases. One of the defendants
in a smuggling case had bragged to people in and around Wilson -that he had bribed Judge Larkins, who was the presiding Judge in the case)
colvia
and that Mr. Winberry beenKa c	to itt, through which the money was
given to Judge Larkinsx the man had been given a suspended sentence. The committee staff,which apparently did not want Mr. Winberry confirmed set to work to defeat his nomination. The committee staff, which was pretty well running the Judiciary Committee since Senator Kennedy was out campaigning for President soon became actively
opposed to Senator Morgan's candidate for the Oudgship, Mr. Winberry. We had reports, which I believed to be true, that one of the investigators for the committee, a man named Carmine Bellino, made the statement in a staff meeting, well, I don't care if we don't have
proof)	we_ADm2f- haye rnal he's a crooked son-of-a-bitch, and I'm going to get him. They got him. Two Senators, Sentor Leahy,rDemocrat from Vermont and Senator Hatch, Republican from Utah,were the two
Senators who attended hearings on Mr. Winberry. The staff was able to bring up people who had been convicted of felonies, cigarette

GIB PRATHER	12
a la tv,Cr
smugglers. to testify/pr. Winberry. Noobs	f've.
g4Iso&tandard proof was ever
offered that he had bribed Judge Larkins and anybody that knows Judge Larkins would know what a silly thing that is because you couldn't bribe him with any amount of money. He had never had any blemish on his long; long career on the federal bench. There were allegations that Mr. Winberry had directed his client to withhold evidence, these were never proved Done of these allegations were ever proved,and yet the coalition of Republican:, joined by a few Democrats was able to defeat the nomination in committee° subsequently, Senator Morgan, who said that this action tat- the committees shook his faith in the system more than anything else that has happended to him
as1441'	tD
while he was here, as the North Carolina Trial Lawyers da, take the
A	A
case record and investigate it, examine it,and to write their opinion as
-
as to how the case was handled. They found that Mr. Winberry^wae, not given fair treatment. One example of that was SenJor Kennedy, who voted against Mr. Winberry by proxy, although he had never read the record and never been present at any of the hearings a.ncl hadn't even been to Washington. This hurt Senator Morgan, I think more than any one thing that -rg" happened to him during the six years he was here.
because he felt -4-	notonly that his personal recommendation had been turned down,which was something of an insult, but that the whole system itself had been abused and he wac a great believer in our
system of government.

UNITED STATES SENATE			eirliAjZ	U.S.S.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510				
PUBLIC DOCUMENT				
OFFICIAL BUSINESS				
eii ?nail, oZZ-viav
rfr„.1.
NORTH CAROLINA.