Americans traditionally have believed in fair play. With this in mind, there is cause for concern e regardless of how people stand on the Equal Rights Amendment – about a feature of the proposal to extend the ERA ratification deadline. Under the extension resolution now before Congress, the states which have not approved ERA are to have extended time and opportunity to reconsider – but those states which have acted affirmatively on the measure don’t have the same right. Sen. Jake Gam of Utah, supported by others, has threatened a filibuster to stall a Senate vote unless states are allowed to rescind previous ratification if they desire. The House voted 223-189 last week to allow ERA supporters an additional 39 months beyond the March 22, 1979 deadline – to win ratification of three more states needed. Now, Senate backers are seeking to cut corners and bring the measure directly to a quick floor vote, bypassing the judiciary committee. Sen. Garn, an ERA opponent, has other objections to the extension resolution, but has made an especially strong point of the rescission issue. Utah’s Rep. Gunn McKay has similar views: “My feeling,” he said, “is that to grant an extension without the right to rescind ratification votes in unfair and borders on being unconstitutional.” When the ERA extension proposal was before the House Judiciary Committee, an amendment that would permit states to rescind was introduced, but rejected. The Washington Post, an ERA advocate, spoke out as early as November 1977 against the deadline extension – and cited as one of the “troubling aspects” the rule that denies a state the power to withdraw its ratification. “If Congress is going to give more time for reconsideration by those states that have expressed the themselves, in a sense, by not doing anything about ERA, it should, in faimess, offer an equal opportunity for reconsideration by those states that have acted affirmatively.” All of Utah’s congressional delegates have criticized the proposed extension, claiming procedural, ethical, and constitutional problems as well as citing the precedent-setting nature of the plan. The New York Times supports ERA, but opined in a July 4 editorial that “the very process of amending the Constitution is at stake.” “If ERA were given a second seven-year term for ratification by the states, it would be a clear case of maniuplating the process…” Moreover, the Times said, “once the rules are bent, all forces can play the same game.” Sen. Gam cites a study by Jules B. Gerard, Washington University law professor, declaring an ERA extension “is likely to invalidate the ratifications of at least 24 states” since the language of ratifying resolutions specifically mentioned the sevenyear deadline for approval by three-fourths of the states. Sam J. Ervin Jr., former North Carolina senator, made a similar claim as he raised constitutional questions. The Herald shares the con-cerns. We’d rather see Congrss start the process all over again, should ERA fall short by deadline, rather than adopt an extension provision that may be in prolonged legal and constitutional controversy and violate the spirit of legslative fair play. What People Are Suymg “Right after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were subjected to mob action – people throwing stones through windows, burning businesses – there was a real war hysteria going on. To put the Japanese in relocation camps at the time was as much for the safety of the Japanesefl – Sen. S.I. Hayalmwa, R-Calif., saying efforts to seek public restitution for JapaneseAmericans would only renew old resentments. “As you have more and more women working outside the home, they are getting jobs that place them in a position to embezzle or steal. With this larger female working force, it is simply a question of the law of averages.” – Professor Rita J. Simon, head of a University of Illinois law and society program that studied the increase in crime by females.