The Charlotte News
Friday, May 15, 1959
THREE EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports from Geneva that Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko had introduced to the foreign ministers conference this date the Soviet Union's proposed peace treaty for divided Germany. The treaty, as published by Moscow in its original form the prior January, would force West Germany to sever its ties with the Western powers. The U.S., Britain and France months earlier had rejected that whole approach to the problem of a German peace settlement. Western informants said that after a quick examination of the version presented by Mr. Gromyko at this date's conference session, they found that it apparently contained no substantial changes from the proposal in January. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev said in a speech in Russia the previous day that peace had to be made "with the two actually existing German states." The Soviet plan was completely at loggerheads with the Western package proposal, introduced at Geneva the previous day, calling for a peace treaty with a unified Germany. Mr. Gromyko was reported to have made some preliminary comments on the Western plan this date. The package plan had run into a wall of Soviet opposition. But Mr. Khrushchev had made clear in his speech that the Soviet position was exactly what it had been, declaring that West Berlin "must become a free city" with its Western defense forces evacuated. He renewed his call for a German peace treaty "concluded jointly with the two actually existing German states," and said again that the unification of East and West Germany was a question for those two governments to decide by themselves. He also threatened again to sign a separate peace treaty with East Germany if the West did not go along. Those views, at complete loggerheads with those of the West, had been broadcast by Moscow Radio hours after Secretary of State Christian Herter had unveiled the Western package to the conference. Soviet and East German press organs unanimously had rejected the Western plan. Soviet news agency Tass said that the proposals were "based on obsolete conceptions which ignore the existence of two German states." Pravda, the Communist Party newspaper, had termed the plan a "new version of old ideas whose unsoundness already has been shown in life and in the practice of international relations." The East German news agency ADN said that the Western proposals were completely unacceptable and would turn all of Germany into a nuclear powder keg. The next move at Geneva was up to Mr. Gromyko. Mr. Khrushchev's words appeared to forecast Soviet rejection of the whole Western proposal, possibly at this date's session.
The House Appropriations Committee accused the Agriculture Department this date of "complete disregard for the law", criticizing its policies and cutting its 1960 funds by more than 142.2 million dollars. In recommending 3.9 billion dollars for the Department's activities for the year starting July 1, the Committee called for a much more active program of selling surplus commodities abroad. It contended that many of the Department's operations "are of more benefit to the general public than to the farmer." For the Commodity Credit Corporation, which handled surplus commodities and other farm programs, the Committee allotted 2.7 billion dollars, a cut of 100 million, saying that the amount could be obtained by return to competitive sales as directed by the law. For loan programs, which were not direct appropriations, it approved 421 million dollars, an increase of 33 million, all of which was for the Farmer's Home Administration, which handled production, subsistence and farm ownership loans. The Rural Electrification Administration's share of the loan authorization was 215 million dollars, the amount requested. The Committee criticized what it called the Department's failure to sell its surplus commodities on a competitive basis throughout the world. The existing policy, it said, "has invited expansion in foreign production" and had boosted storage and handling costs to the Commodity Credit Corporation. Failure to make world sales of surplus cotton, according to the Committee, "shows a complete disregard for the law," and "can only lead to further damage to the U.S. farmer, the Treasury, and the taxpayer."
In Oxford, England, Field Marshal Viscount Bernard Montgomery had declared this date, in a speech before Oxford University students, that Britain had vetoed a U.S. plan to invade Europe in 1942 on the ground that available U.S. troops were unfit to face the Germans. The Field Marshal said that any such invasion that year would have been an Allied disaster. He revived one of the great controversies of World War II, whether the West should have staged a second front in 1942, as the Russians had been demanding at the time to relieve the onslaught they were facing from the German Wehrmacht on the Eastern front. He recalled that early in 1942, military planners in Washington, among them General Eisenhower, had prepared for a cross-channel operation. He said: "In my opinion the American plan would have involved the Allies in a disaster which would have prolonged the war for years. Churchill and the British chiefs of staff knew better, and they were right. When the American Army went into battle for the first time in the European Theater—in North Africa in 1942, one year after they had entered the war—the troops were found to be very green. Churchill and his advisers knew they could never be sufficiently battle worthy to play their part in Europe against the full might of the German Army in 1942, or even in 1943." Since retiring the previous year as NATO's Deputy Commander, the Viscount had spent his new leisure saying whatever he thought and sometimes, according to some, before he thought. His last previous major statement had been an apology to the U.S. for calling its leadership suspect and its people chicken-hearted. In delivering the first of a series of Oxford lectures, he had returned to a favorite theme, that the West could have saved Eastern Europe from communism if only the Americans had listened to the British during World War II.
In Raleigh, it was reported that a legislative subcommittee this date had recommended 10 percent salary supplements for beginning teachers passing mandatory examinations. Teachers and principals seeking higher certificates also would have to take tests and could qualify for the 10 percent pay supplements. Representative Watts Hill of Durham County had explained the final recommendations of the subcommittee of the House Education Committee, saying that to put them into effect, would cost about half a million dollars the first year and more in the future. He said the final proposals had eliminated a suggestion offered in an interim report three weeks earlier to make optional teacher testing for salary increases. The Committee had instructed the subcommittee to draw a bill to carry out its report. Officials and members of the North Carolina Education Association had appeared at Committee meetings this date to oppose the recommendations in the report. The NCEA legislative representative said that the recommendations would place a price tag on achievement of a minimum test score. He said that passing the suggested examination would provide no assurance of success in teaching. Failure to achieve a minimal test score would not disqualify anyone from securing or keeping a teaching job, according to the report. Mr. Hill said that recommendations were in addition to the existing system of certification and would not reduce existing pay and benefits for anyone. The subcommittee said that it was not recommending a "merit rating system".
Ann Sawyer of The News reports that there were still hungry schoolchildren in Charlotte but that a special Social Planning Council's study committee was making progress toward a solution to the problem, which had been revealed in a series of News articles the prior December and January. The committee chairman told the newspaper this date that the committee had determined that the responsibility for providing lunches to youngsters who could not afford them rested with the schools. The committee and school authorities, who agreed with the committee's conclusions, were working together at this point to find a practical method of feeding the children. The committee, which had begun working shortly before Christmas, had determined that there was a need and that the responsibility for meeting it lay with the school authorities. Suggestions for solving the problems would be made later. When the News had brought the problem to the attention of the public, it had been estimated that approximately 2,000 schoolchildren went without lunches because parents could not afford either to pack sandwiches or to buy hot lunches at the school. Contributions which followed the series of reports had reduced the hungry by several hundred. Included in the number of children who were considered deserving of free lunches but who did not receive them were those receiving welfare checks through Aid to Dependent Children grants. The ADC checks included less than $2.50 per month for lunches for those children. The cost in the city lunchrooms would be about $5.25 per month. (No wonder it all tastes like crap. Might as well plunder the garbage cans or grab a bowlful at the soup kitchen each morning.) City lunchrooms had been feeding about 250 free lunches per day out of cafeteria income, but because so few could be fed, it was decided to exclude ADC recipients. The largest problem of the hungry schoolchildren was in the City schools, but there was also some need in the black County schools. County white school principals said that they were feeding all of their needy children. Other communities met the problem in various ways, with some having special functions to raise funding. At least one town received help through a united fund. The local study committee was not expected to recommend community participation but to work through the schools.
In Charlotte, a collision between a bread truck and a car had critically injured the male driver of the car early this date. The man was admitted to Mercy Hospital with lacerations and head injuries. The driver of the truck escaped the accident with only minor arm and face injuries. Police said that both the bread truck and the car were total losses. The front ends of both vehicles were nothing more than a tangled mass of metal when wreckers pulled them from the street during the morning. The injured man had been thrown from his car and had to be pulled from beneath the truck. The driver of the truck said he was able to fight his way from the wreckage. He said the truck was full of gas and he thought it might be ready to burst into flames and so he had gotten out as quickly as he could. He told police that he was traveling east when the other car had pulled out of the intersecting street into his path. He said he did not have time to stop and after the crash the bread crates had started hitting him in the back of the head and that he was lucky to have gotten out alive.
At the Grand Canyon in Arizona, it was reported that a somewhat subdued adventurer, rescued after more than two days fighting rapids and rocks in the Colorado River running through the Canyon, had this date blamed ignorance and foolishness for his ordeal. He said it was his first attempt to run the river by canoe and that he believed it would also be his last. The 27-year old had gone without food or sleep for 2 1/2 days while he struggled 9 miles down the dangerous river from the Sockdolager Rapids where his canoe had capsized. Water-soaked, exhausted and hugging his dog, Cadillac, the man was hauled from the river the previous day by a group of National Park Service rescuers. He said that a person had to be kind of foolish to try something like that, that he was advised that it was foolish to get on the river without a special rig. The Park rangers required a permit and inspected the rig before approving any trips and he believed that was the way it ought be done, but he had not known about it. He and his dog had started the trip about 70 miles upstream from Phantom Ranch at the bottom of the canyon. He found it beautiful country and wanted to take pictures. He had put the worst part of the river behind him and then had allowed "a little ripple" to throw him, losing all of his supplies with the canoe, which had been found floating on the river at Phantom Ranch. He and his dog had on life preservers which kept them afloat and he had managed to stay out of the worst of the river's roiling rapids as they struggled downstream. There were few places where they could get out of the water, which flowed between sheer canyon walls rising hundreds of feet. He said he had never been able to sleep and believed he was "very lucky" that the mishap had occurred where it had, as he had just passed a particularly rough rapid where he would have had little chance of survival. "It was a rough trip, but not as bad as it might have been." He figured that his dog had made out better than he had.
On the editorial page, "Windiness, Insolence, Evasion, Delay" indicates that on the crucial issue of civil rights, lengthy petition had its place, but that two weeks of grace which Senator Sam Ervin had gained for the Hennings Senate subcommittee on constitutional rights was not likely to bring forth testimony which would be earthshaking.
Men such as State Attorney General of North Carolina Malcolm Seawell and Governor James Coleman of Mississippi, whom Senator Ervin would bring before the subcommittee, had, it asserts, talked sense before and they might talk sense again in support of the "Southern" viewpoint on civil rights. But it indicates that those who talked sense and those who really wanted to do something regarding civil rights, apart from the profit or loss of politics, were bent low by other voices and events.
Since 1957, when Congress had passed the Civil Rights Act, prudently designed to work on the viable level of voting and seemed to be headed toward progress, the public conscience had become jaded by a battery of talk and political maneuvering.
Several new bills had been proposed in Congress, notably one by Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois for the punitive camp, another by Senator Lyndon Johnson, who now sat ostentatiously with the so-called "Western" caucus in the Senate. Both of those bills had been introduced before the investigating commission, set up by the 1957 Act, had reported its findings to Congress. Meanwhile, the commission had been balked in Alabama the previous fall when poll-tenders and election registrars had refused to provide records on black registration and voting or its absence.
DNC chairman Paul Butler, in unusually fit form the previous weekend, had provided a good example in the area of talk, predicting that the 1960 Democratic convention would write "the strongest statement that's ever been written on human rights". It finds it a meaningless statement of complete political bravado. But it had served a purpose as Senator Allen Ellender of Louisiana, on whom Mr. Butler had seemed to be closing the party door for some time, had flared up in response. Not content with a wrathful Democrat, Mr. Butler had gone on to charge Vice-President Nixon with "all words and no action" regarding civil rights, that charge having resulted in Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania responding bitterly.
"So the vapor swirls on, thickening as time passes. Crossfire between parties and pot-shotting inside parties mounts. The bureaucracy of congressional committees, subcommittees, and commissions grows bafflingly intricate—only to be largely ignored."
Thus far, it had all gained for civil rights very little. Hamlet had complained of the insolence of office and the law's delay, and it comments that if were added to the insolence windiness and to the delay evasion, his words would apply remarkably well to the present. "Either all the talk and the superstructure of committeeism is a big joke and merely conceals the license of Mr. Butler, senators, election officials and party warhorses to cavort at will. Or it is a tough, soul-trying struggle by serious compromise and debate to broaden the enjoyments of democracy among minorities."
"One Sure-Fire Way To Get Publicity" indicates that the five new members of the Charlotte City Council had learned their first political lesson the previous day, that anything which smacked of "secrecy" in municipal government usually ended up on the front page under a banner headline.
The off-the-record get-together held informally on Sunday by the five new members had no doubt been motivated by the purest of intentions, one of them indicating that they thought they ought to get oriented prior to being sworn in on Monday.
The old Council had awakened, however, to the truth that they could not hide from public scrutiny when, in late 1957, several attempts had been made to hold secret sessions on important zoning matters, which had not worked. Every whisper uttered behind closed doors found its way into a reporter's notepad and the following day, it was in the newspapers.
There was no such thing as secrecy among governmental officials. Public bodies could close their doors but could seldom close the mouths of their members, there being all types of leaks. Every good and dedicated newspaperman had his sources and a system of getting at some form of the truth. As all newsmen were aware, members of public bodies did not have a choice between the fullest secrecy and the fullest of publicity. They had a choice between complete, accurate and honest reports of a proceeding and distorted and occasionally inaccurate reports of a proceeding.
The five new members of the Council, who had not been trying to hide and who had hid nothing, had been plainly amazed to find themselves so suddenly in the soup. "But it was a valuable experience—and one to remember. Publicly, of course."
"This Is Carrying Liberalism Too Far" indicates that snails, canned rattlesnake meat and smoked eels it could tolerate, albeit gingerly. It could even suffer through a social occasion during which the hostess provided fried grasshopper hors d'oeuvres, pickled octopus and chocolate-covered ants, as long as the potato chips held out.
It had not tried it, but might even manage some compassion on the subject of seaweed tea, rose-petal jam, broiled kangaroo tail and shark's fin soup.
But it drew a line when it came to the "very latest things" among "people of refined tastes", that being broiled baby sparrows packed 4 to 7 to a tin, smoked skipjack tongues, fried butterfly cocoons, jellied roostercombs, chocolate-covered grasshoppers and squid in its own ink. "This is carrying liberalism too far."
It proposes stern measures, the organization of a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Diners, sanity tests for cooks, a roostercomb tax, torchlight parades, maybe even a direct appeal to Bertrand Russell. Eventually, lobster might have to go, but it would first go after the baby sparrow lobby.
If its plan succeeded, Southerners could once again settle back in safety and contentment with such sensible delicacies as chittlin's, ragout of possum, catfish stew, pickled pig's feet and cracklin' bread.
A piece from the Raleigh News & Observer, titled "So Long as It Was Blue", indicates that the graduation or promotion suit as a reward for scholarship seemed to have been stored in mothballs. A few years earlier, the commencement suit for the local schoolboy was as hallowed as the armor Arthur's knights had tried to walk in. The lack of funds for scholarship precluded many suits and the boy who got one treated the garment as if it were the oriflamme of a righteous cause.
One could get any kind or color as long as it was blue serge. High school seniors wore white trousers with blue coats at class lawn parties, but the duck or flannel pants were separate gifts from an older brother or rich uncle. The suit came straight from the merchant's rack. The town tailor made suits for the banker or doctor, but otherwise was chiefly a mender. The commencement suit was worn only on Sunday, at funerals or weddings, or some such spectacular event as a glee club appearance at the schoolhouse. The merchant also threw in a tie to match the suit.
The first time the boy wore the outfit, he glittered as royally as "a blue serge cloud passing through the green hands of Maytime." Everyone in town knew that the suit was a badge of honor. "The old beauty was impervious to everything but lint and accumulated wear. The seat of the pants was tough as a green stick. You could see your reflection a year before a rip was even incipient. As the old soldier and the Wonderful One-Hoss Shay the blue beauty never died or wore out. No sir, it just dissolved, finally, the way the rain steals a downy cloud."
Drew Pearson indicates that the lengthy cross-examination of Admiral Lewis Strauss regarding his confirmation to become Secretary of Commerce had been described by Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, the former campaign manager for Thomas Dewey, as nitpicking, calling it, "A journey into the territory of trivia." Most Senators, however, disagreed with that assessment, believing that the testimony boiled down to two important questions, the first being whether Admiral Strauss had deceived the President, the American people, and the Congress in his activities as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and, if so, Senate critics believed he would also be deceptive as Secretary of Commerce. The other question was whether he had so broadened the issue of "executive privilege" that both Congress and the public were denied the right of knowing what the executive branch was doing. Thus the question was would the Government continue to operate in a goldfish bowl as during most of its 180 years of existence or would it operate within a Kremlin.
The restrictions placed by Admiral Strauss on providing information to Congress were the most severe ever imposed by a high official in time of peace. They had set a high water-mark for peacetime censorship and many Senators wanted to make sure it did not constitute a precedent. Confirming the Admiral as Secretary of Commerce probably would do so.
Admiral Strauss operated on the
theory that whenever he talked to a member of the White House staff
about any subject, he was automatically excused from providing to
Congress any information on that subject. Thus, all he or any other
bureaucrat had to do was to pick up the phone and call a member of
White House staff and discuss a matter on which Congress might wish
information and subsequently, they had the right to deny information
on the subject. Senators were alarmed that it was a new doctrine and
that it could be used as an all-embracing cover-up of anything
embarrassing to any bureaucrat. (That is precisely why in the current
environment in 2026 it is particularly stupid of the idiot who
is currently El Vice-Presidente to suggest that the Watergate scandal
which eventuated in the resignation from office by President Nixon in
August, 1974, 26 months after the break-in at the Democratic national
headquarters at the Watergate by members of the White House Plumbers Unit,
set in motion by the President via the Huston memorandum of 1971
authorizing covert domestic operations against enemies of the
Administration, and embracing far-reaching activities of domestic
spying, not only limited to the break-in at the Watergate for
the purpose of planting bugs to eavesdrop on the DNC, its chairman
having been former aide to President Kennedy, Lawrence O'Brien
Mr. Pearson continues that when Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico had served as Secretary of Agriculture, he had been asked by Congress to provide the names of those speculating in the grain market, embarrassing to the White House as President Truman's personal physician, Dr. Wallace Graham, had been speculating. Secretary Anderson had obtained a ruling from the Attorney General that he ought provide Congress the information and he had done so. He believed that there was no "executive privilege" regarding commodity speculators merely because the information involved the White House.
Admiral Strauss, by contrast, had flatly refused to provide Congress information regarding the Dixon-Yates contract, the biggest conflict-of-interest case since the famous Teapot Dome scandal of the Harding Administration—the largest scandal in the Government prior to Watergate. The Admiral refused still to provide that information. Testifying before the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee recently, he had stated that even if the Attorney General were to rule that he ought testify, he would not do so. His counsel, William Mitchell, had been asked whether the Admiral was following his advice, to which Mr. Mitchell had replied to Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee that he did not advise him on that point.
Walter Lippmann indicates that it remained questionable whether the President would get from the Congress the budget he had sought, but that he seemed assured of support of the broad principles he had adopted, that the next budget be approximately balanced and done without raising taxes but rather by holding down military and civilian expenditures. For the time being, the battle against inflation was going reasonably well in that price levels were holding stagnant. (He could have taken the tack of the moron currently in the White House in 2026 and blamed President Truman for the recession of 1957-58, but he did not. We are not indulging in hyperbole. The current Administration, faced with the highest annualized inflation rate since 2023, 4.2 percent, solely because of old dumbbell's self-chosen war against Iran and his vaunted, illegal and failed tariff policies, all just to appeal to his dumbbell base in Magaville, USA, now seeks to blame it on the Biden Administration which left office 17 months ago with a lower rate of inflation, 3 percent, 1.2 percent below that presently extant. But, of course, if he ever manages to get the number lower than that which prevailed in early 2025, he will brag that it was all his brilliant doing. Stupid is as stupid does... He needs a good dunk in the incompetently painted Reflecting Pool rather than constantly studying his own reflection as Narcissus. Speaking of which: Al G.—Al Jazeera—Ali G.—It's a goddamned Arab conspiracy by the lefty Commie Socialists. Arrest all of them and charge them with conspiracy to commit mayhem. Put 'em in jail for life. Treason against the King!)
Mr. Lippmann finds the news from the money markets nevertheless providing little support for the notion that the battle against inflation was being won. The Treasury was having to pay high rates for short-term money and the long-term bond market was depressed while stocks and real estate were booming, the classic signs of inflation, showing a lack of confidence that money would conserve its purchasing power. When there was such a lack of confidence, people preferred to own tangible goods, as when they purchased equity, to having promises to pay dollars in the future.
The behavior of the markets reflected the judgments of the investing institutions with their expert advisers and thus formed a type of poll in which those who were questioned backed their opinions with their money. They were saying that they expected continuing inflation, regardless of whether the President won his fight in the current Congress about the current budget.
There was no precise answer to the question of what was causing the pessimism, as the situation involved a preponderant majority of investors not only in the U.S. but also abroad having come to the same practical conclusion, though not necessarily for the same reasons. The same conclusion they had reached was evidently that in the battle against inflation, the President had not produced a policy which was good for more than the next budget, without any policy which was good for the longer future.
It might be that the 1960 budget could be brought into balance, though even that would take a certain amount of finesse in bookkeeping. For if the particular budget was balanced, it would be done not by reducing expenditures but by postponing them.
Examining national commitments, it was probable that the U.S. position as a whole would be out of balance for years to come. National commitments were for defense, for internal development, for welfare and public facilities. Against those commitments there were also commitments to the farmers, the veterans and the taxpayers who were expecting a tax reduction. There had been major political battles fought to bring those conflicting commitments into balance. But there was no reason to believe that the country would be able to spend less on defense, instead would almost surely be compelled to spend more. Regarding civilian expenditures, there had to be a substantial increase over the present level, unless by an unlikely miracle the huge agricultural subsidies could be eliminated or at least drastically reduced. It was virtually certain that the public money expended for public facilities would rise sharply in the ensuing years. The growth of the population was one reason why those expenditures would have to rise, and the growing concentration of the growing population in large cities was another. Moreover, because of World War II and the Korean War, there was a major backlog of necessary public expenditures for schools, hospitals and many types of projects to conserve and develop the country's natural resources.
If a third world war were averted, as it probably could be, it would probably be the case in the 1960's that there would be a movement, comparable with the New Deal of the 1930's, to modernize public facilities.
The prospects in defense and in internal civilian improvements made it virtually certain that with the present tax structure and the normal rate of growth, there would be heavy pressure against a balanced budget. A consideration of those realities might account in considerable measure for the pessimism of the money markets.
He suggests that there was no simple and easy remedy to the dilemma, that what had to come first was to stop pretending that the 1960 budget was a genuine and adequate answer to the problem of inflation. Then there had to be a start to defining and posing the real questions which would confront the nation, deriving from the fact that to balance the budget against the rising expenditures which were inevitable, it had to brace itself "to the grim, the politically untouchable and unspeakable truth that we shall have to raise more taxes."
Robert C. Ruark, in Palamos, Spain, says he was not going to let Arthur Godfrey's cancer spoil his bookings for August in Spain, that he was being equally firm with Rex Smith who had attempted to wreck his summer plans for seeing some bullfights and drinking nutritious sherry by also having cancer. He had written at length to Mr. Smith, the writer, poet, military man, pheasant shooter, and airline executive, that in the future he would have to have his cancers in the winter when the weather in his part of Spain was lousy and he was generally off to Australia or Africa.
He knew of no subject which was less susceptible to humor than another man's sickness, unless it was a personal ailment. Ten years earlier one would not have read that a person had cancer, as had been the news coverage on Secretary of State Dulles, Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Smith. "The evil thing has finally come out into the open, to where you can write about it. I had two grandfathers who died of cancer, and the obits said: '… from a lingering illness.'"
He could remember when venereal diseases were called "social diseases", which he finds to be an apt description if one's humor was warped, and he could remember when tuberculosis was either spoken of as "galloping consumption" or was just referred to as a hacking cough which sent one to Asheville or Tucson or some other place for recovery. People who went nuts were suffering from "nervous disorders" if it was mentioned at all.
During his lifetime he had seen syphilis and gonorrhea conquered with an injection. A friend in London who had a case of TB which formerly would have kept him flat on his back for a decade, was at work after a month of treatment with some of the new drugs. They had done almost impossible things with insanity and heart surgery. The conquest of cancer, he believes, was just around the corner.
"Mr. Godfrey has been a patriotic man, as has been Mr. Dulles and Mr. Smith, but all of Arthur's work for naval aviation, all of Foster Dulles' work in the State Department, all of Mr. Smith's excessive contributions to warfare, journalism, bullfighting, poetry and literature, have not amounted to the sum of their contribution in this cancer thing. The lurking beast that only needs the correct tracking has been brought out into the open, to where cancerous illnesses can be covered by news services, and not covered up by the weaseling 'long illness' or 'lingering illness'."
He suggests that maybe it was what they needed to get the Government to spend as much on cancer research as on rockets or on "thieving politicians and ungrateful, hateful strangers in foreign lands. The American Cancer Society has been great, but private money can't carry the load alone."
He suggests that all that was needed to remove cancer as a menace was enough money and men to research it to find a solution. Dr. W. Randolph Lovelace of Albuquerque had once told him: "All we need is enough money and enough men." That had been repeated to him by every sincere research physician he had known.
He urges getting the Government solidly into the fight against the disease, and in the meantime he was expecting Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Smith to arrive during the summer at the airport in Prat, just outside Barcelona, because he and Mr. Smith had some bulls to see and he and Mr. Godfrey had a safari to consider.
A letter writer wonders whether the Constitution had been murdered in 1948 [actually, 1945] when the U.N. Charter had been ratified and questions whether the U.N. Charter overruled the Constitution.
The editors note: "No."
A letter from the editor of the Rockingham Post-Dispatch indicates that the News was read there, and based on the number of people who had spoken to him and phoned him, the editors had been most gracious in their May 11 editorial, "The First 50 Years Are the Hardest", and he thanks them for it.
A letter writer from Clinton, S.C., indicates that the negotiations presently ongoing between the union and the steel companies would expose some glaring and embarrassing inequalities within the capitalistic system which would push the country further toward communism.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.