Both were right and both were wrong. In the world which seemed in the making, one based on fear, it was necessary to be armed, as such a peace could only be maintained at gunpoint. In a world which had universal military training, having it at home, though with totalitarianism as an inexorable result, would be a vice, not a virtue.

Total war required totalitarianism as a necessary adjunct to wage it. Civil liberties and a well-disciplined military were incompatible in the final reckoning.

The only relevant debate therefore with regard to universal military training was whether to have it or not, not whether it implied necessarily a totalitarian view, truistic as that was. And that entailed a decision as to whether the peace would be maintained through force or international cooperation. The generals, thus far, observing the deteriorating course of Russo-American relations, had little choice in the matter.

Hickory, for instance, had experienced rent gouging without rent control, veterans complaining of 50 percent increases in rents, and was now begging OPA to intervene.

Nobody could argue with NAM's contention, but as Hickory demonstrated visibly, lack of control caused consumers hardship. NAM had not produced figures to show that full production would necessarily prevent inflation. Without controls, the inflationary result would hit the white-collar worker's pocketbook.

It questions how far any level of government could go in such restrictions without creating monopolies and eliminating free enterprise.

It agrees that some level of restriction of the trade was appropriate, for the sake of public welfare, morals, safety, and health.

The Board of Aldermen did not appear to favor any particular company, but it served as a reminder of the risks associated with too stringent government regulation, especially when it restricted private individuals from engaging in small business. It was a step on the road to "socialization of our whole economy". It was important to understand when to draw the line.

A man has to know his limitations.

The reason for the delay in prosecution was the presence in the American Constitution of the protections of Due Process, privilege against self-incrimination and the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring probable cause. In Canada, suspects could be arrested and held incommunicado without the benefit of habeas corpus. Thus far, the case against the 22 arrested in Canada was considered by American observers to be circumstantial—albeit not preventing a case from being brought when a corpus delicti was also present and there was connection between it and a particular suspect.

There is no requirement under American law that cases have direct evidence as opposed to circumstantial evidence connecting a suspect with a crime, only that the evidence constitute something beyond a mere hunch or the mere basis for a fishing expedition to try to discover more evidence. Obviously, however, direct evidence makes for a stronger case.

The Canadian case had revealed a code name, apparently one which was used regularly, of a man in the State Department with whom the Soviet, to whom the secrets were provided, visited every two weeks via courier. While the code name did not provide sufficient evidence for prosecution, his usefulness henceforth as a State Department official had ended and he would be dropped. In other cases, it would be difficult to determine whether a particular person was working toward international peace or genuinely had sympathies for Communism—especially in light of the statement during the week of former Ambassador to Moscow, Joseph E. Davies, that the Russians had every moral right to spy in the United States as long as America withheld the atomic secret, thus posing a substantial threat to the Soviet Union, its ally during the war, and without whom, as contemporaneous observers generally agreed, Hitler could not have been defeated without substantially greater loss of both American and British lives.

Obviously, if the man with the code name was quite effective in his role, the Soviets would want to link him with revelation of secrets.

Pumpkin, pumpkin. Who's got the Pumpkin?

Despite pressure from the Army and Navy, Secretary Byrnes, a former Supreme Court Justice, not to mention Attorney General Tom Clark, a future Justice, insisted on strict adherence to the Constitution and protection of civil liberties—unlike some folks we know from history, who see those things as mere niceties to roll out on July Fourth and otherwise simply view them under glass, hermetically sealed for posterity to admire, but never, ever actually to be used for their intended purpose, for that would be Radical.

She had just delivered on Lincoln's Birthday a hard-hitting speech regarding racial injustice. She stated that there were only human rights, regardless of skin color, a Christian concept. She attacked Senator Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi for his racial bias and implicitly called him a liar.

Her audience had been surprised by the speech, expecting barbs aimed at the Democrats. Only a small bit of applause followed. Several Republicans had walked out in the middle.

The press had practically omitted mention of the speech. Many in the audience believed she was simply seeking votes from labor and blacks.

The real reason, the man would say, that Ed Pauley was having trouble in his confirmation process was that he had displeased his handlers, the Communists. That fit his world view in which President Roosevelt deliberately lured the Japanese to Pearl Harbor and the country was now deliberately starving the Germans. He was so determined not to be naive that he would believe anything.

The Canadian spy case was made to order for him, and when policies proved inadequate, he would blame not bad judgment or mistakes, but rather some unseen man who knew someone in the State Department, "and then there was this suitcase; but the girl disappeared, the one with the winds message tattooed on her forearm."

"It is a world of eerie electrical visions; and our philosopher hopes that if he can find the right scare, he can swing an election with it, an election in which the people will vote as their goosepimples direct rather than according to the realities of impending inflation and world insecurity. He hopes perhaps that, like himself, the people will be so busy reading lines written in invisible ink they will quite forget about handwriting on walls."

Exactly: "Rainbo" tattooed on her forearm. We knew this 'as gon' be the day.

Mr. Grafton, had he only his crystal ball handy, might have understood the future, that brewing in the wings writ by its primary artists, orchestrators, and writers of the E. Phillips Oppenheim era to come, replacing the stale, simple cloak-and-dagger period just expired with the war. These new orchestrators, with names like Nixon and McCarthy, would use the same manipulative devices, the same dei ex machina, but with a new MacGuffin, in the case of Nixon, the Pumpkin, the Pigman, and the Snake, somewhere between Kipling and Orwell, not Orson; in the case of McCarthy, the secret list of messengers of the State Department and Army acting as intriguants in the larger scheme. In the contest over who could fight the lowest and dirtiest without being recognized widely enough for the trait, one will become Vice-President after dodging a political scandal involving a dog, a coat, and $20,000, finally, on the basis of several fortuitous turns, in the road and in the ballroom of the Taft Hotel, will reach the White House, while the other will go to the booby hatch with the D.T.'s after being disgraced and censured by his Senate colleagues.

Perfect script, boy. Call it "The Olde Mill Wheel, or the Dam Which Finally Broke in the Barroom on the Tenth Day".

Oh yeah, and there is even the proverbial Chick, and the poser of the Chick—whose name may have been J. Edgar.

He proceeds to provide conviction statistics regarding crime in Rock Hill, a town of 16,000, between 1925 and 1935, and during the immediately previous decade, finding the rate almost four times higher in the latter period.

Moreover, the South Carolina Legislature had a proposal to erect a $275,000 addition to the State Hospital for the treatment of alcoholics.

He thus finds the effort to legalize liquor every bit as destructive as would an effort to legalize narcotics.

The editors respond that the past decade included the war years—not to mention a host of other variables apart from the abandonment in 1933 of Prohibition. And, the State Hospital had sought for years to have an addition for treating alcoholics; thus, the fact that it was now before the Legislature proved nothing.