The Charlotte News

Monday, June 22, 1959

TWO EDITORIALS

Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that Secretary of State Christian Herter this date had given the President an hour-long report on the deadlocked Geneva foreign ministers conference, presently recessed until July 13. Following the conference, the Secretary confirmed that he would go on nationwide television and radio the following night to explain to the American people about the futile efforts thus far to reach agreement with the Russians regarding Berlin and other problems. Mr. Herter had told reporters at the White House that the time for his broadcast had not been definitely set. He said that he had reported to the President in general terms and that they had discussed "just where we are" in the efforts to ease the East-West tensions. A reporter had asked him about prospects for an eventual summit conference of the Western heads of state with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and he replied, "That is something I just don't want to go into at the present time." He then had gone on to say that at no time during the six weeks of the conference had the Western foreign ministers discussed with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko the possibility of a summit meeting. He had arrived the previous day from Geneva after the fruitless first round of the talks and had said then that the Soviets had revealed that their actual aim was to absorb free West Berlin and keep Germany divided until they could bring the whole country under Communist influence. U.S. authorities believed that the best course for the West was to stand firm and see what the Soviets came up with when the Geneva foreign ministers conference would resume, having recessed the prior Saturday. The view in Washington was that Britain, France and the U.S. had hit rock bottom in the concessions they could offer to the Soviet Union regarding Berlin. But officials intended to return to Geneva still willing to bargain sincerely, provided the Communists, forsaking their uncompromising position, would do likewise. There was no support evident in Washington for a pre-July 13 Western summit to shore up the allies or even for a Western foreign ministers meeting except in Geneva a day or two prior to the resumption of the talks. Mr. Herter had talked with the President by telephone on Sunday, but a scheduled Sunday White House appointment had been postponed.

In Baton Rouge, La., it was reported that Governor Earl Long's new attorney had said this date that the Governor's bid for freedom from a mental health clinic near Baton Rouge might develop in the courts as early as the following Wednesday. The attorney was an old political buddy and had been a one-time attorney general candidate on a Long-backed ticket in 1952, and said that he would see the Governor again during the afternoon. He had visited Mr. Long the first time the previous day at Southeast Louisiana Hospital in Mandeville, where the Governor was confined. The attorney declined comment on why the Governor still wanted to pursue legal action rather than seeking the rest under hospital care which physicians had said that he needed. He said that he found the Governor "in good health and good spirits, but mad as the dickens… That seemed natural to me after 22 days of confinement in various mental hospitals." When asked how a constitutional provision might affect the Governor's status while in a State charitable institution, the attorney responded that it was one of the things he was exploring. A provision of the State Constitution said in part that inmates of charitable units could not hold public office. Lt. Governor Lether Frazar meanwhile still was not clear on whether he was acting governor and indicated that he expected a legal opinion on the matter by the following day. It still had not been resolved whether Governor Long was legally insane, and if not, whether he could be released from the State mental hospital, and meanwhile, who was the chief executive of the state. Physicians who had visited the Governor on Sunday reported that he was "quite cooperative and his general condition satisfactory." Five days earlier, the Governor, cursing and fighting, had been taken to the hospital in Mandeville after being arrested near Baton Rouge in his car after he had sped away from a New Orleans hospital to which he had been confined, following his three weeks of confinement at a mental facility in Galveston, Tex., to which he had been spirited away at the behest of his wife, following a tirade launched in open session of the Louisiana Legislature, attacking his political enemies with freely exercised cussing, after which his wife said she feared for his mental stability and health. The coroner for East Baton Rouge Parish, also a psychiatrist, said that the Governor was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, delusions of persecution. At the time he had been arrested and taken to the Mandeville mental facility, he had been on his way to Baton Rouge to resume his executive powers.

In Tallahassee, Fla., it was reported that the four white youths, ranging in age between 16 and 23, who had been convicted of raping a 19-year old black coed of Florida A&M University the prior May 2, had been given life sentences by the judge this date, the maximum sentences which could be meted out for the conduct. They had been found guilty by an all-white male jury, which had recommended mercy, saving them from the death penalty. No white person had ever been executed in Florida or any other state for the rape of a black person. In pronouncing sentence, the judge told the four youths that he had never imposed less than a death sentence or life imprisonment on a conviction for rape. The four youths had paled when the sentence was pronounced but showed no other trace of emotion. Under Florida law, parole from a life sentence was possible after six months, but those convicted of rape customarily served at least ten years before being considered for parole. The judge told the four as he prepared to pronounce the sentence: "You have been convicted of a very serious offense. It is an offense that is horrible and under horrible circumstances. The court feels sorry for you and for the prosecutrix. You are fortunate that the jury recommended mercy." A 2011 article from the Tallahassee Democrat reported on the subsequent history of the four defendants, each of whom was paroled by 1967, the youngest having won parole in 1965, the eldest released last. One of the four was subsequently convicted of attempted murder in 1993 and remained in prison in 2011. Another was convicted of the murder of a black woman in 1969, the youngest 1959 co-defendant having testified in that case that the man had told him while in prison that he intended to kill another black woman as vengeance for the 1959 conviction, though upon reversal on appeal, he was acquitted by a second jury. He nevertheless spent another 16 years in prison for the 1959 case based on a parole violation in association with his fleeing arrest in the 1969 case. The eldest defendant had returned to prison on a parole violation for the 1959 case in 1975 but was paroled again in 1976, and no further criminal history was known in 2011. The youngest of the four had no further problems with the law as of 2011. (It should be noted that under present Supreme Court decisions since 1977, rape cannot be subjected to the death penalty by any state, to avoid the provisions of the Eighth Amendment barring cruel and unusual punishment, a proscription generally extended since 2008 to all crimes except homicide and crimes against the state such as treason. It begs the question as to why the Florida Legislature in 2023 thought it could change that proscription under the Trumpetytized Su-preme Court by passing a law permitting imposition of the death penalty for rape of a child under age 12. While a heinous crime which is revulsive to the general public mind, it nevertheless no less offends the sense of proportionality when seeking to invoke the supreme penalty provided by law, as opposed, for instance, to life imprisonment without possibility of parole, the final penalty affording no possibility for any rehabilitation once applied and thus to be invoked only in the most extreme of criminal circumstances, where life is taken with malice amounting to murder, plus some form of premeditation, taking it out of the context of manslaughter-type homicides. An increasingly punitive society, especially in Magaville states, is a prescription for fascism where the object becomes involving the state in killing people for the sake of satisfying blood-lust, a never-satiated condition once begun, which befit Nazi Germany. Moreover, a primary, usually unconsidered and unstated reason for not imposing the death penalty in non-homicide cases, or for that matter throw-the-key-away sentence durations, is that it tends to afford a shield to the victim of such other crimes from being murdered by the perpetrator, as otherwise the latter would be more likely to kill the victim to avoid the prospect of a living witness, figuring that there was nothing to lose in potential penalty if subject to the death penalty in any event, assuming that a mind depraved and loosed of moral restraints enough in the moment to commit such an act would also be capable of committing the ultimate act to avoid detection. Heedless of those rationales and heedless of the Supreme Court's wisdom, a Florida prosecutor's office recently announced that it would seek the death penalty in such a case, apparently regarding it as a test case, apparently believing that Magaville, USA, would damned sure Mek Amurica Grate Agin with its A-1 edrucashun, by putting to death whomever the public cry for blood demands, right to life 'cept for some no 'counts who never deserved it nohow, regardless of no damn law to the contrary. Hell, an' if they don't like it, we'll damned well throw 'em in the Everglades for the gator meat. Nobody gonna treat our li'l chillens like 'at and walk to see daylight agin, ye know? Nawsir. Pardon our good friends, hell, put 'em in the White House, but death for ev'ryone else.)

In Cloudcroft, N.M., it was reported that a light plane had crashed close to a ranger station early this date, killing four persons. Forest Service employees said that the four dead appeared to be a family, a man, a woman, a boy and a girl. No identification had been available immediately. The plane had burned after the crash. A Forest Service employee said that the single-engine craft had flown east over the ranger station at a low altitude, that the motor had suddenly quit and the plane had nosed down and dove into the trees. The gas tanks had exploded as soon as it hit, and he indicated that there was no chance to get the bodies out until the fire had cooled down, at which point they had used hacksaws on the twisted wreckage. The Federal Aviation Agency had been unable to indicate where the plane was from or its destination. It was believed that the pilot, based on identification found in the wreckage, was from California.

In Toluca, Mexico, it was reported that four persons had been killed in a stampede while leaving a movie theater on Sunday night after its roof had been ripped off during a violent wind storm, with about 20 persons having been injured seriously in the panic.

In Miami, Fla., beset by rain which had broken the city's 1942 June record on Saturday night and had messed up streets, lawns and daily activities, the Weather Bureau reported this date that more rain would fall, followed on Tuesday by scattered showers, if correct, prolonging the wet weather to eight consecutive days. To this date, the Bureau had calculated 19.67 inches of June rainfall for the city, compared to 4.61 inches on average in a comparable period of time. The previous record for all of June had been 19.45 inches. Eleven inches of the current month's downpour had come within a 72-hour period, following a destructive tornado the previous Wednesday night.

In Charlotte, it was reported that Robert Cherry, vice-president of the Federal Reserve Bank branch in Charlotte, said that he had no comment regarding a statement by Representative Wright Patman of Texas that audit reports showed $100,000 in U.S. Treasury certificates had disappeared from the Charlotte branch. Mr. Patman, longtime critic of Federal Reserve banking operations and credit policies, said on Sunday in Washington that Federal Reserve audit reports had disclosed "unbelievably shocking" management deficiencies. He had said regarding the Charlotte situation that an investigation of the mysterious disappearance of the certificates had revealed only that they had been removed from an envelope after delivery and had been destroyed with trash burned up by the member bank. In pointing to a 1957 audit report, the Congressman said that the $100,000 certificates were 2.25 percent indebtedness, series B-1957 tax anticipation notes and that they had been allotted on direct subscription to an undisclosed South Carolina bank which, in turn, had requested that they be delivered to an unidentified company in North Carolina for safekeeping. Mr. Patman added that the South Carolina company had received a signed receipt for the total amount, but that the consignee bank admitted that it had not opened the package to verify the contents at the time of delivery. Mr. Patman added that when the package was later opened, it reportedly contained only six lots of securities, totaling $785,000, to which were attached receipts numbered 36 to 41. He asserted that "according to the records of the branch, their certificate was one of seven lots of like securities, in the aggregate amount of $885,000, to which were attached receipts numbered 36 to 42, prepared by the branch on August 15, 1956." He said that the failure to alert the consignee bank had placed a measure of responsibility on the branch bank in Charlotte because the consignee was unable to make a search of its waste paper or to institute other investigative measures which might have been effective if started promptly. He added that steps had then begun to secure a replacement certificate.

John Kilgo of The News reports that Jesse James had been sworn in as Charlotte's new Police Chief this date at City Hall by Mayor James Smith, and that the first thing the large man had asked for was patience, while the first thing he had been told he did not have much of was money. He was the city's youngest police chief, having come from Burlington, where he had served as chief. About 20 people from Burlington had made the trip to wish him well. The City Council members were present for the swearing-in ceremony, as were other business and civic leaders and several had been called on to make short talks.

Ann Sawyer of The News reports that the culmination of a decade of discussion and effort at consolidation of the City and County school systems would occur on Tuesday, June 30, when a bond election would be on the ballot, determining the future of countless thousands of schoolchildren in the county. The question posed would be for or against levying a 54-cent countywide tax per $100 of property valuation to supplement State revenues for school purposes, with a vote for the bond measure representing a vote for consolidation. The tax would mean a four-cent increase over what was presently being paid. For someone whose home was valued at $10,000, it would mean paying four dollars more in City taxes. For a County property owner, with a home on the books at that value, the 14-cent increase would mean a $14 higher tax bill. At present, the 50-cent supplement paid by property owners in the City School Administrative Unit was used to pay teachers more than the State scale and to employ teachers to enrich the school program. The County school system used its 40-cent supplement to increase teacher pay, provide for music teachers, for additional teachers to relieve heavy student loads, and to relieve principals from teaching duties, as well as providing for some special teachers, such as in physical education and speech correction. With an increased countywide supplement, it would be possible to provide in County schools in a limited way some of the special services offered by the City schools, including special education, music, physical education, libraries and art. The larger supplement also would bring County teacher pay up to the level of City teachers. If passed, about 56,000 students in 93 schools with 3,500 employees, 2,100 of whom were instructional personnel, would be consolidated. The bond passage would also erase the boundary line between the City and County school systems and most children could attend the schools nearest their homes. The children in the perimeter area which would become a part of Charlotte at the beginning of 1960, would not automatically come into the City School Administrative Unit, except via consolidation.

Brodie Griffith, editor of the newspaper, announces six new employees added to the News staff during the previous three weeks, including Tom Wingate, an experienced North Carolina newsman, who had taken over the state desk, with his responsibility being coverage of the news in the adjacent areas; Elizabeth (Betty) Barrett, who had become a woman's department reporter immediately upon graduation from Woman's College in Greensboro; Dick Rigby, who joined the staff from the High Point Enterprise and would cover the local news scene as a general assignment reporter; Jerry Shields, who would be a reporter, having received his master's degree from UNC earlier in the month, and was also on general assignment; Monroe Campbell, a UNC graduate, who had moved to the copy desk after two years with the Durham Morning Herald; and Jerry Bellune, who had begun with the newspaper as a copyreader after having been a student at Furman University. He indicates that the bylines of reporters Rigby and Shields would appear with increasing frequency in the coming months along with those widely known veterans of the staff, Julian Scheer, Dick Young, Sr., Emery Wister, J. A. Daly, Elizabeth Prince, Bob Slough, Ann Sawyer, John Borchert, John Kilgo, Bill Hughes and Jerry Reece.

On the editorial page, "Mecklenburg Delegation Performs Well" indicates that the Mecklenburg five-man delegation to the Legislature had performed well during the session which had begun in February and had just ended. They had performed "with all of the adroitness and sagacity of parliamentary veterans." It finds it one of the best delegations from the county in many years, though they had not provided perfect scorecards, there having been times when the editors believed they had erred seriously on single issues, but taken as a whole, had performed in superior fashion.

State Senator J. Spencer Bell had earned not only the admiration of his home county but the respect of the entire state for his remarkable leadership during the session. Even though his ambitious program of judicial reform had been butchered by those with lesser vision, he had demonstrated the degree of statesmanship, integrity and intellectual vitality seldom encountered in Raleigh, bringing honor to the county and to the state.

Representative Frank Snepp, although only in his second term, had risen swiftly to leadership in the State House, and was one of the session's most vigorous debaters, extremely active in shaping the most important legislation to come from the session.

Representatives John P. Kennedy, Irwin Belk and Ernest Hicks, using somewhat subtler techniques, had nevertheless worked hard, contributing much and earning the esteem of fellow lawmakers. Mr. Kennedy, serving in his first term, had been particularly effective in educational matters and had demonstrated great intelligence in dealing with several of the more ticklish legal questions. Representatives Belk and Hicks had represented the county interests equally well.

The delegation had balance, courage and devotion to the common good and was a generally popular team.

It suggests that it also had to be remembered that all of the men had served their county and state at great personal sacrifice in time and money, having moved to Raleigh for 4 1/2 months and toiled in the Legislature for modest pay, an aspect of their service which was often overlooked.

"All in all, the delegation gave a reasonably good performance in reasonably challenging times for metropolitan Mecklenburg."

"Tall Task along the Evacuation Routes" indicates that the Pentagon was a long way from Charlotte and so were the cubicles where "specialists" planned the country's atomic policy, and yet "Evacuation Route" signs would soon be placed on the roads of Mecklenburg County, reminding the residents that they lived in a "target" area.

Occasionally, condensation in the sky marked the passage of a Strategic Air Command bomber, carrying nuclear weapons, reminding everyone, however remote from Washington, that public policy was not the exclusive preserve of specialists in the Pentagon or elsewhere.

As Raymond Aron had written: "Even Clemenceau's wisecrack about war being too serious an affair to be left to soldiers is now an understatement."

Now, the subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, chaired by Representative Chet Holifield of California, had opened hearings regarding nuclear attack, which might prove revolutionary in their hold on public attention. For about six years, those who lived at the outer crossroads had been under the shield of nuclear deterrence, not much concerned with the responsibilities involved. The official passion for "secrecy" had spared the public the ugly facts of bombs and sheltered policy from dangerous excesses of common sense. Beginning during the current week, however, the experts would lay bare many ugly facts and for the first time, the voices of public sentiment might intrude on the inner circles of Washington.

It posits that it would be the public's responsibility to monitor a transition in policy.

The President, who had scorned Adlai Stevenson as a visionary during the 1956 presidential race, when Mr. Stevenson had urged nuclear test suspension, was now said to believe that the time had come for such suspension of nuclear testing. He was faced with substantial opposition, however, in the Pentagon, where the military and their scientists, such as Dr. Edward Teller, argued that "limited" nuclear weapons were the promise of the future and that the country could not make an international agreement which would keep them from shooting "small" nuclear weapons.

The basic question was just how candid the Pentagon was being, with public scrutiny needed to be hard and direct. Those advocates of "bigger bang for a buck" appeared content to let the threat of "massive retaliation" fade into the background on the basis that the large bombs were self-defeating. Before the Holifield subcommittee, they would show how nuclear attack on a vast scale from either side of the Iron Curtain would bring disastrous fallout damage to the initiator of such an attack. They would argue that consequently, the U.S. ought test and develop "limited" nuclear weapons, small ones for small uses, supposing, fantastically, that if war began, adversaries would politely limit themselves to small nuclear weapons in the hope that the enemy would do likewise. The supposition, however, flew in the face of the basic human instinct to survive and to survive by means of the largest weapon at one's disposal. That instinct was common to all nations, even the most "moral", and so it was reasonable to suppose that any limited-weapon war would quickly devolve into an all-out, big-bomb war. The Pentagon experts were saying as much, indicating that the latter type war was fatally self-defeating.

It suggests that if the President was to have his test ban and if the planet was to endure, the "limited" nuclear war proposed by the experts had to be shown up for what it was, cant.

A piece from the Christian Science Monitor, titled "Tiddly Olympics", indicates that at the University of Chicago stadium, where the atomic bomb had been born, warlike sounds had been heard. "After all these years, it is becoming clear that the celebrated termination of intercollegiate football at that institution in 1940 was merely a feint. It confused the opposition into thinking that the Chicago campus was not sports-minded. But now the truth is out. During this long hibernation the students have simply been shifting their attention to the far more ferocious game of tiddlywinks."

The University of Chicago students had challenged England's world-champion tiddlers, the Cambridge University eight, to a match in September. It suggests that it was not a move to be winked at. For Cambridge had previously defeated Oxford. It notes parenthetically that the Oxford Dictionary naturally defined a tiddlywinker as "a cheat … a trifler". The Oxford tiddlers were known as Goons, backed by the Duke of Edinburgh. Cambridge had also defeated an all-star team from the London Empress Club, also backed by the Duke, who said, "I believe they are capable of an even dirtier game than the Goons." The latter group were led by General Sir Hugh Stockwell, and they had been defeated by the Cantabrigians with a devastating series of squops, 88.5 to 25.5.

Chicago was rumored to be concentrating on de-squopping tactics and might seek to introduce a new type of springy plastic wink equivalent to the "rabbit ball" in baseball. It promised to be a model of unsportsmanly behavior to gladden the heart of the otherwise sportsmanly Duke.

Drew Pearson indicates that Howard Keck and his Superior Oil Co., the same who had become mixed up in an attempt to bribe Senator Francis Case of South Dakota during the battle over the Federal natural gas act, had pulled a fast one recently in California. Working with other oil companies, primarily Standard Oil of California, Superior Oil had flown four Republican members of the California Assembly to Sacramento to block the oil severance tax proposed by Democratic Governor Pat Brown. The chartered planes which had flown the members back to Sacramento at oil company expense had been more than just a lobbying trick. It would mean a cut in planned pay raises for California school teachers and professors at State-supported institutions, that the national limelight would be thrown on the Rockefeller family and the presidential candidacy of New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

For Standard Oil of California was not only a Rockefeller company, it answered directly to the direction of the Rockefellers, that having been tested when the late Secretary of Interior under Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, Harold Ickes, had demanded that Standard of California rehire Ralph Davies, who had taken leave from the company as its president to work for the War Petroleum Board. Mr. Ickes had demanded that Mr. Davies get his job back, but the Rockefellers had said no, and that was the final conclusion.

In the recent California lobbying battle involving both Superior Oil and Standard, Governor Brown had proposed a 2 percent severance tax. California was the only oil-producing state in the country without such a tax. The tax bill was immediately opposed by Harold Morton, a potent lobbyist for Superior and other companies, whose son-in-law, Joe Shell, was strategically placed in the California Assembly as the Republican floor leader. Finally, Governor Brown had gotten the bill out of the Revenue and Tax Committee, where it had been blocked, and referred it to the Ways and Means Committee, whereupon the oil lobby had moved to reconsider it and send it back to a pigeonhole in the Revenue and Tax Committee. The lobby needed 41 votes to win, but was four votes short. So the special airplanes had been chartered and had flown the four members of the Assembly from a fishing trip near Quincy, north of Sacramento, the result having been that the oil lobby won its position and California remained the only oil-producing state in the country without a severance tax.

The President had stated "so what" in answer to a recent press conference question regarding the lobbying to confirm Admiral Lewis Strauss to become Secretary of Commerce, that confirmation having ultimately failed. He presents part of the pressure campaign, the likes of which Washington had seldom seen previously, some of it having been very close to the President. Regarding Senators B. Everett Jordan and Sam Ervin of North Carolina, General Kenneth Royall, former Secretary of the Army, presently a Wall Street attorney, had made a special trip to Washington to urge the two Senators to switch their votes to the Admiral. Mr. Royall was a North Carolinian and had been a guest at the White House, was an attorney for Ellis Slater, a Seagrams Whiskey executive and bridge-playing partner of the President. Mrs. Slater had accompanied Mrs. Eisenhower to the Elizabeth Arden beauty ranch in Arizona in the presidential plane the previous year, and her husband had arranged for the insemination of one of the President's Black Angus heifers by Mr. Slater's prize bull.

Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut, who had announced his vote for the Admiral as induced by the latter's "courage, competence, intellectual power," actually had so voted because of pressure put on him by Governor Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut, who advised Senator Dodd that a vote for the Admiral was the way to clinch the Jewish vote in that state.

Marquis Childs indicates that an American official following the Geneva conference had recalled recently an incident from the Potsdam Conference of July, 1945 in which President Truman had confronted Joseph Stalin in the President's first exercise of global responsibility, having said to then-Secretary of State James Byrnes, "Why, say, Jimmy, we've been here nearly ten days now and we haven't got a blankety-blank [presumably 'goddamned'] thing out of these people."

He finds that 14 years later, the U.S. had gone on thinking that it could polish off the big international problems within a few weeks or a few months and then get back to normal peacetime pursuits, but American impatience came face-to-face with the long-term, unchanging objectives of Russia and Communist China.

That applied with special force to the area which was now perhaps the principal battleground for the long-term between the two ways of life, that of the free democracies and the Communist countries, India. Whether India would succeed or fail in raising its standard of living and creating a viable nation out of a conglomeration of diverse peoples and religions was likely to determine the shape of things to come for a long time into the future.

At the moment, he suggests, things were looking up. Communist China was having serious troubles and its "great leap forward" had fallen far short, leaving behind a snarl of overburdened transport and food deficiencies with continued tight rationing. The subjugation of Tibet and the persecution of the Dalai Lama had produced throughout Asia anger and indignation. But equally important was the evidence that the U.S. was beginning to learn the lesson of patience in the long view. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, had voted to give the Development Loan Fund five years of continuity with a billion dollars per year to be underwritten out of the Treasury rather than through annual appropriations.

Mr. Childs posits that the advantages of that arrangement were obvious, making it possible for long commitments, for example to India's five-year plans, rather than risking each year the political roller coaster of the appropriations committees. The President had once favored such a plan, but if he persisted in his present opposition, the proposal was likely to be killed.

Senator John F. Kennedy had revised the resolution he had introduced in February to invite other nations to join in a mission to consult with India regarding the possibility for joint action to assure fulfillment of India's second five-year plan and the effective design of the third plan. It would be extended to Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma provided the joint mission found common development programs. As revised, the resolution would indicate that the mission ought be carried out under the umbrella of the World Bank.

He finds the last aspect to be important for several reasons, that a common approach would be possible to the billion-dollar development of the waters of the Indus River, the water for irrigation having been the source of a fierce dispute between India and Pakistan, coming close to open warfare, and also would bring Eugene Black, head of the Bank, into the picture with a talent for economic statesmanship which he had demonstrated in recent years.

The current breathing spell in the struggle between the two ideologies in Asia could be the last chance for the West. India was in deep trouble over its current five-year plan, which would end in 1961. A bailing-out operation as undertaken by the U.S. and Britain, was not enough. The third five-year plan, intended to raise living standards by 6 percent per year at a cost of an estimated 26 billion dollars, was quite ambitious. The Ford Foundation had recently issued a report showing that the gains made in food production had scarcely kept up with the substantial increases in population, and that in 3 to 4 years, mass hunger was threatened.

The Russians meanwhile were hinting that they would do much more, investing between 650 million and a billion dollars, to help the third plan than they had thus far.

Mr. Childs concludes that it was thus the challenging moment of decision in a contest which would be won or lost not in years but in decades.

Doris Fleeson indicates that Governor John Patterson of Alabama had not surprised the forces of Senator John F. Kennedy by announcing his support of him for the presidency, but that his timing had been a surprise. Governor Patterson had broken the pattern of a well-laid plan when he blurted out his endorsement following a trip to Washington during which he had breakfast with the Senator, with the plan having been to wait a year before issuing his endorsement and then ascribe his choice to grassroots sentiments which he had found. His early choice was a matter of astonishment to other politicians in Alabama and elsewhere.

Democratic governors generally had been going to great lengths to avoid stating a choice in the fluid situation among the Democratic candidates. In states which had primaries, some governors were preparing to avoid making a choice down to the wire or sponsoring others for the sacrificial post.

The statement of Governor Patterson, she finds, had been at least revelatory, showing other candidates with eyes on the South, on which Senator Kennedy had not given up hope to attract the Southern delegations which had supported him for the vice-presidential nomination in 1956, in the hope of beating the ultimate choice of the convention, Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee.

Replying to the initial opinion of some that the endorsement by Governor Patterson would hurt the Senator's chances in Northern states, supporters of the Senator said that the question of civil rights had never come up in his discussions with the Governor over breakfast. They declared that the Senator's position on civil rights was sufficiently secure that Governor Patterson's endorsement would not change liberal judgment regarding the Senator's candidacy.

But in Alabama, the decision of the Governor was another question, being one of the most Protestant states and in the past having been a hotbed of Klan activity. If its Governor could safely sponsor a Catholic for the Democratic presidential nomination, the situation would have changed as much as many believed that it had.

Even if the Governor could not entirely control his state's delegation at the convention, his decision would be a blow to those Southerners who hoped to organize a bloc to depart the convention and create a third party, much as had the Dixiecrats in 1948 following the adoption of the progressive civil rights plank put forth by then-Mayor Hubert Humphrey, running then for the Senate.

Any affirmations of support were welcomed by the Kennedy forces, who were presently finding roadblocks to their progress at nearly every turn. The Senator believed that he needed more than anything else a chance to demonstrate his vote-getting appeal in a couple of primaries. One of the few states not yet closed off to him was Maryland, not very appealing to politicians as it only lightly bound its delegates to the convention. But the Senator believed that there would be an opportunity to oppose directly Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri, whose family roots were in Maryland and who was expected to run in that primary. Senator Kennedy thus believed that the primary might yield some national recognition.

A letter from J. R. Cherry, Jr., indicates that he had noticed recently in the newspaper that a previous letter writer had been upset because Frank Porter Graham, former Senator and former president of UNC, had not been accorded recognition and honor at the commencement exercises earlier in the month. Mr. Cherry, a graduate of the University, sees no sense "in gushing Dr. Graham with more of the same type of recognition and honor he's been gushed with for the past 25 years. 'Nuffs-a-nuff! And besides, is it not probable that members of a decaying civilization are somehow vaguely conscious of a limit beyond which it becomes downright hypocritical and shameful to continue idolizing one who has consistently (though unwittingly) contributed to that decay?" He says that there was a condition under which he would join liberty-loving citizens in paying tribute to Mr. Graham, that being "the day he publicly slips to his knees and asks the forgiveness of the people of N.C. for having been largely responsible for reducing their institution of higher learning (University of North Carolina) to essentially a sniveling, conforming academic mouthpiece for insidious left-wing propaganda of every crimson shade and odor—that will be the day I can say—to quote me verbatim: 'Let us honor a man whose professional good intentions often lacked sober wisdom—an educator whose passion for utopia wrecked his capacity to become a true scholar. Let us honor him because he has confessed a great sin to the free people whose sacred trust he failed to carry in their finest traditions. May he now be moved to spend his remaining active days in the atonement of preserving, rather than destroying, the great heritage passed on to him by ancestors who freely and unselfishly bled, so that he and we might be the beneficiaries of that heritage.'"

Incidentally, as we have pointed out before, the newspaper had a habit of consistently conferring a doctorate on Mr. Graham, when he was a veteran of the Law School and had taught at the University as a history professor, in which he had a Master's Degree from Columbia, albeit without a doctorate, before ascending to the presidency of the University, and consequently would not generally be referred to as a "doctor", by no means intending to demote him or his honorable career in academia and public service in any way, just striving for historical accuracy. His progressive views in a time of regression in the state constitute the important thing, not his titles.

A letter writer from Salisbury indicates that in the fast and busy age, very few took enough time to be courteous and thankful, while such lack of courtesy hurt each person and their friends. "A little courtesy will take away friction that might cause hard feelings or at least bad or hurt feelings. People are pleased and overjoyed by an expression of courtesy. Such an expression of courtesy may blow away whatever ill feeling our friends feel toward us."

Framed Edition
[Return to Links
Page by Subject] [Return to Links-Page by Date] [Return to News<i><i><i>—</i></i></i>Framed Edition]
Links-Date Links-Subj.