The Charlotte News
Wednesday, April 8, 1959
FIVE EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports from Bonn, West Germany, that Chancellor Konrad Adenauer declared this night that West German policy "will not be changed one iota for years to come", despite his withdrawal to the less active role of president. The presidency, he told his national audience, "is far more powerful than people generally believe." His agreement the previous day to drop the chancellorship and seek the presidency, generally only a ceremonial position in West Germany, had caused repercussions not only in German politics but also in world capitals. East-West negotiations on Berlin and Germany were coming in the spring and summer, with the foreign ministers conference scheduled to start on May 11. The Chancellor had been in the forefront of a hard policy of no bargaining without Soviet concessions, a policy which ran counter to British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's position of greater flexibility. Chancellor Adenauer, 83, said that his decision was "designed to secure the continuity of our policies for years to come." It was his first personal explanation for his sudden and surprising decision to run for the presidency the following July and quit the chancellery the following September, if, as appeared certain, he would be elected to the presidency. He devoted only the last two minutes of his ten-minute address to his own future. Most of the speech had been concerned with foreign affairs and particularly the worsening of relations between Britain and West Germany. He said that the fate of Britain and the fate of Germany were inseparable. He blamed the chilly relations primarily on anti-German feelings lingering in Britain from World War II. He pledged to do all which he could to prevent the Germans themselves from fanning those anti-German sentiments. He made it clear that he had no intention of giving up national leadership entirely, even though constitutional limits were placed on a president's activities. He said: "Public opinion, both in Germany and abroad, is inclined to underestimate the position, the tasks and the work of the President of the Republic. These are far greater than is generally believed." He had gone on to say that the Bonn Government's foreign policy would not be changed during the East-West conferences during the spring and summer, and also not after his successor as chancellor would take over. He said that he knew his listeners had to have been "very much astounded", that although it was a quick decision, he felt certain it was "well thought out and correct." He made no mention of any possible successor in the chancellery. Nor did he explain what had prompted his decision at the current time, but it was generally believed that he was leaving because of his age. He had also been plagued recently by colds and other ailments. He concluded his address by saying: "We are and we remain loyal partners of our partners, loyal friends of our friends and alert opponents of anyone who opposes our just demands for peace and freedom and reunification in peace and freedom." In the end, the Chancellor would remain in his position after being urged by the allies to continue.
In Havana, it was reported that in a
move to render worthless money taken out of Cuba by former dictator
Fulgencio Batista and his aides, Fidel Castro's Government this date
had decreed that current 500 and 1,000-peso bills would be replaced
by new bank notes. Holders were provided until April 30 to exchange
the old notes, normally worth $500 and $1,000, but the Government
said that payment on bills turned in would be held up until the
origin of the money was determined. The announced exchange of Cuban dinero might find some degree of analogy in the dilemma faced this week by Bat Masterson
The Senate Select Committee investigating misconduct of labor and management planned public hearings soon on violence in labor disputes at the textile mills in Henderson and Franklin, N.C. The chairman of the Committee, Senator John McClellan of Arkansas, told reporters that no date had been set for the hearings, but he expected them to be held within the ensuing month, perhaps within the ensuing two weeks. Senator Sam J. Ervin of North Carolina, member of the Committee, said that there had been demands for the hearings and he favored holding them. He had been briefed on evidence adduced by Harold Ranstad, a Committee investigator who had been sent to the two towns to conduct a preliminary investigation. Mr. Ranstad had written a report which would be submitted to the Committee at a closed door meeting perhaps during the current week or the next. Officials of the Textile Workers Union of America at Henderson and of the Hosiery Workers Union at Franklin, had appealed to the Committee for full-scale investigations of acts of violence at both sites. Dynamitings, beatings and other violent acts had occurred during a strike by the TWUA at Henderson. At Franklin, Robert Beame, an organizer for the HWU, had alleged that he had been beaten and run out of town while attempting to organize employees of a hosiery mill.
In Indianapolis, the murder trial of a woman accused of shooting to death her married lover, had been recessed this date until the following morning because of a legal question over the death of a court clerk. The recess had occurred just as the defendant was about to testify as to how her lover had been shot to death. The defendant appeared depressed and said she would have preferred to go on with the trial this date. The clerk had been ill and had not been in court, but lawyers questioned whether the clerk's deputies could legally sign documents for him. Both sides eventually consented to the continuance for one day. We shall await the outcome with bated breath.
Dick Young of The News reports that City Manager Henry Yancey would stick to his original intention of resigning on May 1. At the afternoon session of the City Council meeting, he would tell his bosses that he had to leave at the end of business on April 30, saying that he sincerely regretted that he was unable to heed the requests to stay on the job a little longer.
Mr. Young also reports that four-term City Council member Steve Dellinger had announced this date that he would seek re-election.
In Charlotte, a two-year old boy had decided to take a walk during the morning and had disturbed his whole neighborhood. He strolled off from his home in the Hickory Grove section at about 10:00 and his parents had called County Police for help. About 20 police officers and volunteer firemen from the Hickory Grove department had searched for the little boy, eventually finding him standing next to a creek in the woods about a quarter-mile from his house, crying. His father said that he was not hurt, but was scared. He said that the boy had not said much until he got home and then pointed and said, "Cars, cars. People, people." His father said that the boy could not understand it all.
Julian Scheer of The News reports that a man rode a train 35 miles per week, at 35 feet per trip. The man was the engineer on the Kiddieland Flyer, a miniature train for youngsters, at a Park Road Shopping Center amusement park. His train had an engine, two coaches and eight seats. The red and yellow flyer hauled youngsters round and round from 10:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. each day. Each ride took only three minutes and each trip was from 10 to 15 circles on the 35-foot track. His partner at the park allowed him to be the engineer, as the partner became dizzy on the ride, as did reporters. On Saturdays and Sundays, he found himself in the train 3 to 4 hours without a break, hard on him. The average weekday saw 50 or more trips and on weekends, more than 100, all going in circles. He said he did not get dizzy but became awfully tired. He found the job, however, not to be boring. "You have to keep alert. Some kids get frightened and want to get out. Some want to stand up. Sometimes I have to hold the little ones on my lap." The engineer had been a welder, taxi driver and a truck driver, and liked the present job about as well as any he had previously. When he was not going in circles, he operated the other rides, boats, cars and the merry-go-round. He said: "You know, when I'm not engineer, I watch the kids on other rides—watch 'em go round and round and round…"
In Charlotte, it was reported that Federal District Judge Wilson Warlick, famous for his homespun humor which cropped up every day during sessions, had come up with one this date during the case of a man charged with a violation of regulations governing the interstate transportation of domestic animals. A veterinarian livestock inspector with the Department of Agriculture had been on the stand as a Government witness, being cross-examined by the defense attorney, who had asked what kind of cattle was involved, to which the witness said "a mixed breed", at which point Judge Warlick had leaned over the bench and stated: "In other words, hamburger and country style steak."
In Fulton, Kans., it was reported that the men of the town had thought that the Ladies Citizens ticket was the funniest joke in town, until the previous day, when women had won control of the town government. The voters had turned out in record numbers, 88 strong, and elected a 72-year old woman as mayor. Three other candidates on the ticket had been elected to the five-member City Council. The mayor-elect said that the men had been joking and kidding about them when they had first started talking about running for office, and they had just wanted to show the men they could do it. She was a retired employee of the IRS and had defeated the incumbent mayor, a grocer, 46 to 35. The town had a population of 231. The mayor-elect said that they had several things they wanted to do, including getting people to keep their dogs out of other people's yards and gardens, as some people had said the town was going to the dogs. "We like to think it went to the women."
On the editorial page, "Mecklenburgers Have a Job To Do" indicates that the selection of Edwin Jones as chairman of Mecklenburg's Community Building Fund Campaign represented virtual assurance of civic progress in a time of enormous need, as he was a young, energetic and imaginative person who knew Charlotte, its problems and its people.
It indicates that he had to have community support, however, as the fund campaign represented a triumph of conscience over carelessness.
The responsibility for a quarter of a century of neglect belonged to the entire community and the assistance of the entire community would become required to correct it. It expresses confidence that the citizens would respond with a burst of civic zeal. The need was evident. The leadership was available. The time to get busy was at hand.
"Bishop Penick: A Counsel and Guide" indicates that the Protestant Episcopal Church had lost an expressive missionary with the death of Bishop Edwin Penick. As the church's prelate for the state, his guidance had been a model, his authority felt and his policies respected. Churchmen in such a position had to walk a thin tightwire above the audience of public opinion, as they were buffeted from all sides by divergent forces and had to be able to moderate, assuage, direct and, occasionally, reject. Bishop Penick had done all of those things and had done them well.
He was well known in Charlotte, as St. Peter's Church had been his first charge in the state. His distinguished career had been marked with long years of service in the region, especially in both Carolinas.
He was a native of Kentucky, the son of an Episcopalian minister, the brother of another and father of a third. Steeped in his church's traditions, he had been elected bishop coadjutor in 1922 and bishop of the diocese of North Carolina a decade later. Quite by nature a serene personality, the bishop had delivered tempered but dynamic sermons, always able to communicate a keen message for the kingdom of God.
He had been planning to retire in July, but had remained active until his recent illness, leading to his death at age 72. It indicates that his duties would be passed on, but that the memory of the man would be a bright light to those who had known him.
"Baltimore Rock" finds that often a story was difficult to translate into a bright, informative headline and sometimes it did not go over at all. There was also the localized headline, which was clear to informed area readers.
It cites an example from the Baltimore Sun: "Zumbrun Asks Tawes Probe Hepbron", referring to the managing director of the Criminal Justice Commission, who had asked Governor Tawes to take over a Baltimore investigation of the policies of James Hepbron, the police commissioner.
It finds that it beat many rock 'n' roll lyrics.
No one listens to that crap anymore, all devolved to easy listening junk. Folk and jazz are in, now. Get with the program and stop being such a condescending elder.
"Season's Greetings Come to the City" indicates that the First Presbyterian Church's oaks had donned patrician green for another spring, and that along famed Sugar Creek, new grass was bright, as an attempt at camouflage. Judas trees slashed somber patches of deep shade with garnet swatches. New-minted daffodils sparkled in the dew like golden coins scattered by an emperor's hand. Peach and cherry presented delicate pastels, showing their bloom before the dogwood, which would offer a snow of purity dazzling in nature.
"Charlotte's spring is a sound, a movement, a surge of color."
It finds that early morning was the best time to appreciate it after the city's haze of winter had been swept away with crisp air and winter's frost had ended, with summer's spellbinding heat still ahead.
"Educational Note" indicates that the frontiers of learning were being advanced in Hanover Park High School in New Jersey by a course in Home and Family Living, which featured mock weddings. One such "wedding" held recently had been replete with the bride and groom, clergyman, parents, punch and "miniature chicken salad puffs". It was claimed that it fostered "better appreciation of the dignity of the wedding ceremony."
It finds that it also fostered a better appreciation of indignities committed in the name of public education.
A piece from the Christian Science Monitor, titled "The 'Perfect' Violin", tells of a wanderer among London auction rooms having come upon a collection of violins, leading the philosopher in a person to wonder why no one had ever produced a new type of violin to supersede the classic model as it had appeared in the 16th Century. The answer invariably was that the violin was born needing no improvements, usually a view espoused by one who admired from afar. The person who played the violin, however, sometimes had more original ideas regarding potential perfection of the instrument.
It indicates that the violin's perfection was frequently in the hands of the player, that even the most adroit manipulator might find his artistic efforts hindered by pegs which slipped, fingerboards which changed position as the weather changed, strings which stretched or snapped. Some violins had screechy high registers or wolfish low ones. It was why names such as Stradivarius, or his teacher, Amati, or Guarnerius led all the rest. The perfection of the violin was rarely achieved either by the maker or the player.
Even some of the older violins were far from perfect, but all attempts to improve on them had only reminded of the horse in the fable which offered his own specifications for self-improvement and became a camel, "on which the playing of a sonata would be a pleasure to next to nobody."
Drew Pearson indicates that at the NATO meeting of foreign ministers in Washington, one British diplomat had remarked privately that more than 100 diplomats were in the conference room and so he could not discuss any secret security plans for settling the Berlin crisis. Mr. Pearson finds that true, as there was not much important policy discussed in the regularly scheduled NATO meetings, but that there was plenty discussed in private. He remarks that it was always difficult to report on those backstage talks, but from British, American and other allied sources, the column had been able to piece together the major highlights of what had occurred.
From the President and the British had come the fact that Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd had bitterly resented criticism that he and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan were following an appeasement path similar to that of Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938 vis-à-vis Hitler. It had come up many times during the course of private conversation and it had nettled the British considerably.
The President had talked to Secretary of State Dulles by long distance telephone to gauge his reaction to various points, and to some extent U.S. foreign policy was still being dictated by the sick man from his bedside. Mr. Dulles had urged the President to stand firm and not to become dragged into a summit meeting which would in the end become a fiasco, regardless of how much Prime Minister Macmillan wanted to be re-elected.
From British talks with U.S. and allies, Mr. Lloyd was said to believe that the Russians intended to be reasonable at the foreign ministers conference, as well as at the summit meeting. He believed that the Berlin crisis might turn out to be a blessing, as it might remove cold war tensions. He asserted that perhaps Mr. Khrushchev had stirred up the Berlin crisis deliberately to prod the West into a summit conference. Mr. Lloyd was convinced that the Russians would not start a war regarding Berlin. He had provided a somewhat lengthy and important diagnosis of what was occurring inside Russia and how it affected the West, by far the most important viewpoint expressed at the meeting. He had balanced political differences inside NATO against political differences inside Russia by indicating that inside NATO, some Western leaders believed that an end to the cold war would bring disunity among the NATO allies and spread neutralism toward Moscow, that without the threat of Russian aggression in the cold war, NATO would disintegrate. He said that inside the Kremlin, the same dissension was taking place among Russian leaders, that the anti-West, conservative, pro-Stalin clique in opposition to Mr. Khrushchev believed in more armament and more ability to crack down on the West. The liberal clique led by Mr. Khrushchev believed that it was possible to relieve pressure and get along with the West. Elaborating those ideas, the British claimed that relieving cold war tensions would encourage peaceful forces inside Russia and that the West could afford the same lessening of tension if it strengthened pro-Western forces inside the Kremlin.
The British argued that the cold war kept the cork on the Soviet Union, keeping tensions bottled up. It discouraged the healthy trend of the Russian people toward broader education, higher standards of living and greater tolerance. For the higher the level of education and living standards in Russia, according to Mr. Lloyd, the more the Russians would want to negotiate and not fight. Thus, the British position was to use Berlin as a means of establishing a better understanding with Russia, which could be done without surrendering any of the West's responsibilities in Berlin.
Walter Lippmann, in the third of a series of five pieces on the Berlin situation, following his recent trip to Europe, indicates that the two German states, which, as he had already pointed out in the earlier pieces, would remain that way for the foreseeable future, presently dealt with one another in many economic and technical matters. For instance, for a considerable time, West German traffic to West Berlin had been controlled by the East German government, and with the assent of the West German Government, it exercised the right not only to stamp identification papers but also to inspect cargoes.
There was every reason to suppose that there would be increasing intercourse and communication between the two German states, though they did not recognize each other as legal and legitimate sovereign states. He indicates that it must be accepted that for years to come, perhaps a generation or more, the two German states would have to live side-by-side with the frontier on the line fixed by the armistice which had ended World War II. From the frontier of East Germany to the city of Berlin was 110 miles. The basic problem was protection of the future of West Berlin, which consisted of 2.5 million people, who would have to expect to live for an indefinite future, perhaps the remainder of their lives, in the heart of a Communist state.
He believes that the future of West Berlin could not be secured adequately by a determination to stand firm on a policy of standing pat. The West could prevent the Soviets and the East German government from blockading West Berlin, and could threaten to go to war if they did. But that was not good enough. West Berlin lay in a strategic trap, and its security could not be protected adequately by military measures alone. It could be secured against blockade and outright aggression, but could not be made secure against harassment and a perpetual war of nerves, or the feeling that there was no hope.
He indicates that West Berlin was a highly complicated economic and political community, enjoying the institution of private property. There was free enterprise in investment, in banking and in the management of capital. If the division of Germany was to last for an indefinite time, the West would have to find ways to provide the West Berlin community with a dependable order. The West could not expect West Berliners to depend for their whole security on what, during the course of a generation or more, the U.S. might be able and willing to do with the Strategic Air Force. West Berliners could not continue on for years waiting to hear what the Pentagon would say about going to war whenever an East German official harassed them. There had already been some considerable flight of capital since the note from Premier Nikita Khrushchev the prior November, and the economy of West Berlin would wither if, whenever there was a sign of trouble, the best the U.S. could do for it was to threaten World War III.
He believes that the future of West Berlin had to be protected not by standing pat but from the U.S. insisting that West Berlin needed and was entitled to have a new status. When Mr. Khrushchev said that the present status of Berlin was obsolete, it was a mistake for the West to act as if any departure from the status quo would be a defeat and surrender, as it might be an improvement. At present, the status quo was, from the standpoint of the West, extremely unsatisfactory.
He finds that the correct answer to Mr. Khrushchev was to propose that the West negotiate a new charter or statute in which West Berlin was guaranteed an ordered future by the presence of Western troops acting under international auspices. A new statute for Berlin was needed because the existing arrangements were improvised by men who regarded them as temporary. Nobody had planned them for the long term. Nobody supposed that there would be two German states with Berlin in the middle of one of them.
Only the prior week, there was an example of how ramshackle the agreements regarding access to Berlin were, when Soviet fighters had buzzed an American plane which was flying, apparently for the first time, above the customary ceiling of 10,000 feet.
In negotiating a new statute, he counsels that it should begin by establishing the principles under which the West had a right to be present in West Berlin and to participate in determining its future. He finds that the insistence by the West that its rights in Berlin rested on the right of conquest was a poor reason for the defenders of civilization to assert, that resting on that basis would lead to regret, as it would boomerang. If the Soviets were to invoke such a right of conquest such that the whole of Germany would be surrendered to the conquerors, it was not limited to West Berlin. He finds there to be no need to resort to such a primitive and brutal principle as the right of conquest.
The West was in Berlin because it was the capital of Germany and the allies were entitled to stay there until it was once again the seat of a united German government. During the stay in Berlin, the allies and the U.S. in the course of time had acquired a special moral obligation to the 2.5 million inhabitants of West Berlin, an obligation which they intended to honor.
He suggests that negotiation had to start from two fundamentals, the first being the need for a long future of steadfastness and stability and the need for a change which reflected the new realities, which could be accomplished through a new statute in which the future of Berlin was placed in trust with the U.N. The new charter or statute should begin with an explicit declaration that the U.N. trust would last until the two German states agreed to restore Berlin as the capital of a reunited Germany. In the new statute, the right of access, the conditions of coexistence, the relations between the two Berlins and the two Germanys, the presence of allied and U.N. token military forces, ought be specified.
Though it was a complicated process, it was not an impossible thing to establish a city within a city and within a foreign state. The most striking example had been the Lateran Treaty signed in 1929 between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy, establishing Vatican City. The State of the Vatican was a separate sovereign juridical entity, although it was in fact entirely surrounded by Rome. The Treaty regulated the whole problem of access across Italian territory and did so by a process which anyone had to envy who knew something of the fuzziness of the Western position in Berlin.
He believes that such a solution would be acceptable in West Berlin, but whether the Russians would accept it was not known until it was attempted in negotiations. The signs, however, of acceptance of such an arrangement were not completely unfavorable. Mr. Khrushchev had mentioned the U.N. in connection with Berlin, had acknowledged that the West had rights and obligations in Berlin, and had not rejected the idea of a Western military presence there. Both sides had much to gain from such a settlement as it would mean that the West Berlin community would be guaranteed physical security under a new and more authoritative statute than the present, and would also mean that the future would not be foreclosed and the prospect of Berlin's becoming again the capital of Germany would be reaffirmed with the sanction of world society. West Berliners would have reason for carrying on as they would be provided hope, which he finds to be as important as hydrogen bombs in such affairs.
The Russians would get major concessions also as they would obtain the relief which came from straightening out a dangerous muddle, as well as a provisional but durable acceptance of the fact that there were two Germanys. Since the U.N. statute would have to be agreed on by both sides, they would obtain a de facto recognition of the East German state by the U.N., which would mean much to the Soviets as it would help to stabilize their situation in Eastern Europe.
Neither side would "win", but also neither side would "lose". Each side would hold within its sphere of influence what it presently held and neither would surrender to the other any territory or any people. The West would obtain a new legal, political, and moral foundation and framework which would take into account the hard facts of life, that there would for a long time into the future be two Germanys and that Berlin had to be protected in a special way while Germany remained divided.
A letter from C. L. Sulzberger, writing from Paris, thanks the newspaper for its editorial book review of his book, What's Wrong with U.S. Foreign Policy? He indicates that he had been delighted with the flattering nature of the review.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.