The Charlotte News

Monday, March 8, 1948


Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that members of the Cabinet of Finland decided to begin negotiations with Russia on the friendship accord tendered by Moscow two weeks earlier for a treaty of mutual cooperation. The Finnish said that they were prepared to enter a military pact as well. Meetings would take place in Moscow.

Secretary of State Marshall urged Speaker of the House Joe Martin to expedite House action on European aid. The Speaker stated that he believed the House would be able to take action by April 10 or shortly thereafter.

General Charles De Gaulle, at a public rally at Compiegne, called on the U.S. to support the Western European Union being formed between Britain, France, and the Benelux countries in Brussels. He said that U.S. aid to Western Europe ought extend to military defenses. He favored allowing federating German states and Austria to join the union.

From Paris, a French communique told of two American women, employed by the U.S. Consulate General in Indo-China, having been shot to death, their bodies found in a dry river bed into which they had driven a jeep, near the village of Tan Sonnh, three miles from Saigon. The attackers set fire to the jeep. There was no explanation why the two women had gone to the location, not normally frequented by Westerners, outside the security zone maintained by the French.

In Vienna, Austria, an American soldier was shot in the back by a Russian sentry after refusing an order to get off the sidewalk and into the gutter, in front of the Russian headquarters at the Grand Hotel in the international district of the city. The American would likely lose his left arm as a result. Other American soldiers and their girls accompanying the shot soldier fled after the shooting to an American-occupied hotel, as they were unarmed per regulations. The Russian sentries fired over their heads.

DNC leaders J. Howard McGrath, Senator from Rhode Island, and Gael Sullivan, were planning a talk this date with the President on what to do regarding the Southern revolt and the defections of liberal Democrats to Henry Wallace.

The Treasury Department recommended to the House Committee on Agriculture repeal of the taxes on oleomargarine for its unfair aid to butter.

In New Orleans, ten inches of flood water from heavy rains stalled traffic, as shown in a photograph.

Near Morehead City, N.C., off Beaufort Inlet, 21 men were rescued by the Coast Guard from the stricken tanker Norfolk, stranded in the narrow inlet by eighteen-foot waves and a heavy fog.

In Winston-Salem, the State sought the death penalty in the case of the 16-year old boy, a student at Reynolds High School, accused of murdering his parents on New Year's Eve with a rifle. The Solicitor refused to accept a plea to second degree murder. Jury selection began this date in the trial. The names and addresses of the first two jurors selected in the case are printed, should you wish to contact them and state your opinion on the matter.

The boy was slight, standing only a little over five feet tall. He had fled the murder scene with his sweetheart to be married in York, S.C. The murders, based on the youth's confession, were precipitated by an argument with his father over his having stolen money to finance the elopement. He had shot his mother after shooting his father, as she went to the telephone to call police. He had not expressed any desire to attend the double funeral.

His fiancee expected to marry him no matter the outcome of the jury trial.

The Great Lakes Carbon Co. of New York had purchased from the War Assets Administration the National Carbon Co. plant near Morganton, N.C., for two million dollars. It would employ 600 persons.

Martha Azer London of The News tells of the announcement of planned construction of a new apartment development, Tryon Hills, with 250 units at a cost of a million dollars, in the vicinity of the Alamo Plaza Hotel.

We have to wonder whether Haystack Calhoun might be out there vying for a new apartment.

If you had encountered in the corridor Mr. Calhoun one evening at the Alamo Plaza in summer, 1964, you would not have forgotten the experience either, as he required a wide berth for easy passage. Actually, the Alamo Plaza was an unforgettable experience in and of itself, even without Mr. Calhoun.

In any event, the charade of that particular "sport" is remindful of the pols, shills, and "scientists" in the pay of Big Oil who like to play with the future on the notion of the "debate" over global warming being a contest of whether one side is right or wrong, when the stakes are not whether and when but manageability of the problem versus unmanageability and resultant disaster, sooner or later. The fans of the one charade are equally gullible and juvenile in mentality to those of the other.

On the editorial page, "Too Late to Save Truman" finds Jim Farley's prediction that Henry Wallace would poll five million votes in November to be a politically cognizant forecast which Democrats ought heed, especially given his track record. He had correctly predicted in 1936 that Alf Landon would carry only two states, Maine and Vermont.

Given that and the Southern revolt, it was likely that it was much clearer to party leaders that President Truman had to be dropped from the ticket.

The Twin City Sentinel in Winston-Salem had editorialized, based on The News straw poll results, favoring General Eisenhower and Henry Wallace, that the third party candidacy of Mr. Wallace might become more of a threat to the chances of both major parties than anticipated. For if liberal Democrats became convinced that the Democratic ticket could not win, they might switch to Mr. Wallace in droves. The editorial thus favored a face of party unity, putting aside individual personalities and ambitions.

The piece believes that the damage had already been done and that both Southerners and Wallace liberals were convinced that defeat was certain if the party stuck to the President as its candidate. Despite Mr. Farley also predicting that President Truman would remain the candidate, apparently as a means to get him to shift his stances, the piece thinks that he and other Democratic leaders ought be working to draft General Eisenhower rather than trying to save Mr. Truman.

"Checkmate in the 'Cold War'" comments on the efforts of the Big Three, France, Great Britain, and the U.S., to agree to international control of the Ruhr and to form a union economically and militarily in Western Germany under a federal government. France, Britain, and the Benelux countries meanwhile were meeting in Brussels to form a Western European Union. The Congress was nearing a vote on ERP as the Administration called for more aid to Greece, Turkey, and China.

All of these moves fit together as a pattern of global strategy to contain the Soviet Union and Communism while Russia solidified its position in the Communist political takeover in Czechoslovakia and the entreaties to Finland.

East and West were thus forming lines of opposition with balance of power politics setting the stage. While precarious, the balance thus formed did act as a checkmate on further moves by either side. The result of either side going further could prove disastrous.

It was in this climate that the two major powers, Russia and the U.S., were preparing to try to reach agreement on whether to use force in Palestine and in what form that might occur. The piece posits it as the fulcrum upon which the mutual interests of both sides depended.

A piece from the Washington Post, titled "Mischief in Anti-Lynch Bill", points out that lynchings in the 1890's had been as common as gang-related violence in the 1930's. In 1892, 225 persons had been lynched in the country. A hundred of the victims were white.

Lynching was the customary means of punishing horse thieves and cattle rustlers in the early days of the West.

Since the 1920's, the number of lynchings, as recorded by Tuskegee Institute, had been negligible. In 1947, only one lynching was reported—that of Willie Earle, near Greenville, S.C.

The piece finds it therefore a "sorry anachronism" that a bill was now in Congress to make it a Federal crime just as the number of lynchings were practically nil. Most states had conquered the problem and it doubts whether the bill would add anything significant to the state laws. Even under Federal jurisdiction, the lynchers would be tried by local juries, albeit from a larger pool than county courts. It believes that local resentment to Federal intervention would counteract any positive effects. Making the local entity responsible for civil judgments to the victim's family indulged in mass guilt and was thus not salutary or democratic, and, in any event, still would rely on local juries for the judgments.

It finds the anti-lynching bill to be harming national unity when it was necessary to muster it against the threat of Soviet aggression.

That makes a lot of sense.

Drew Pearson tells of President Truman complaining to a prominent New York publisher of the "damned New York Jews" being disloyal to the country. When the publisher inquired as to whether it included Bernard Baruch and his own wife, a Jew, Mr. Truman said it did not and changed the subject.

It underscored the small amount of credit the President had received for his work on Palestine, for civil rights, and for labor. Blacks were not out drumming up votes for the President, despite his recent call for a civil rights program.

The President had also spoken in private of "the damned niggers" on more than one occasion. The conversations had leaked.

On one occasion, when Chester Bowles was head of OPA, he had counseled the President to retain price controls in which case the labor leaders had agreed to a moratorium on seeking wage hikes. The President had responded by referring to the "damned labor leaders" as untrustworthy. The only one he could trust, he said, was John L. Lewis. The conversation leaked to Philip Murray and William Green, heads respectively of CIO and AFL, and it did not endear the President to them. A few months later, the President was cussing about John L. Lewis and his insistence on a coal strike.

Mr. Pearson concludes that the President did not believe in the messages he sent to Congress.

Two Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee had joined Democrats to defeat a preamble section of the anti-lynch law expressing a declaration of racial equality. It was considered to be stump talk designed to anger Southern Democrats.

A motion introduced by a Republican member to delete the provision of the bill making it a crime to conspire to injure the property of another passed, despite opposition by one Democrat, John Jennings of Tennessee, and one Republican.

Also deleted was a provision to deny grants-in-aid to states which did not pay judgments to heirs of a lynching victim.

A poll in Denton, Texas, found that 27.8 percent of the residents wanted to retain the Texas poll tax while 46 percent wanted to get rid of it.

The Argentine Government was seeking permission from the State Department to allow dictatrix Eva Peron to tour the U.S.

Both the above story of President Truman's use of a racial epithet in 1948, albeit thoroughly out-matched by President Nixon 24 years later, and the 1948 Supreme Court case of Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, holding that the University had to supply an in-state law school of equal quality to that of the University law school for a completely qualified black female applicant to the law school or admit her to the University law school, ultimately thwarted by the University to the bitter end, raise to the fore the current issue of this day, the racist chant by fraternity brothers at the University of Oklahoma in a semi-private setting, with the reasonable expectation of privacy, while on a chartered bus, and the expulsion of two of the fraternity members from the University for it. Is the expression, no matter how vile and detestable, as it certainly is, nevertheless protected speech under the Constitution? The answer, very plainly, is yes. The University is wrong in its precipitous action and we hope that it will reconsider it or that the students involved will force the reconsideration via a lawsuit, which is completely justifiable in this instance, as the University is a State institution and cannot deny or punish exercise of free speech, neither threatening nor defamatory to individuals.

The University's president, David Boren, is a former Oklahoma Governor and United States Senator who served the country well during his long tenure. And while we wholly support the sentiment of being appalled at such language, whether in 1948, 1968 or 2015, it is the most vile and appalling speech which is protected or no speech is protected. We are certain that Mr. Boren, a trained lawyer, understands that principle.

In the instant case, the chant went substantially beyond use of a racial epithet and included, "You can hang them from a tree," in immediate reference to "niggers", making it a much closer case than bald use of the epithet, depending therefore entirely on context. Stated in a public place where some "clear and present danger" of violence might be the result would likely make the speech punishable, if violence did erupt from it, though even that would have to be proved in a courtroom. Stated in the semi-private context in this instance, in which it happened to be recorded, does not make it punishable, unless the students involved in the chant, themselves, made the speech public for the specific purpose of incitement and which then in fact could be shown to have had that result.

The relevant question legally is whether, in context, the speech constitutes provocation to immediate violence. The answer, in this particular instance, has to be no, for it was taking place on a chartered bus full of white people, many of whom were joining in the chant. There was no one who appeared challenging of the chant or threatening to engage in violence if it persisted. There was no one involved from the general public, except perhaps the bus driver, whose reaction is not captured on the video. Since the bus was apparently not moving at the time, the driver may not have yet boarded the bus. That, however, is irrelevant as there was no violence reported from the chant.

We remind Mr. Boren that these are college students, given to pressures of academia and, sometimes, release of same in chants which are not salutary in the abstract when exposed to the light of day, whether they are such things as "Go to Hell, Texas" or the type of thing evidenced here.

Having said that, we must also say that even forty years ago, we never once heard anything at the University of North Carolina even slightly equivalent to this disgraceful chant, or before that, in grade school in North Carolina, and to call it vile and despicable is to use too polite language. At the same time, we must respect freedom of speech and thought, especially in the university environment, even when we consider it vile or hateful. Had it been otherwise in our youth, we would not have heard from many black leaders of that time who were considered by middle class whites as vile, disgraceful, and hateful, when in fact they had something to say which we needed to hear regarding the black experience in the inner cities.

To dispel the notion that the University of Oklahoma is a redneck, reactionary school, it would be a far better thing to have these students, after a suitable period of calming, continue with their studies without any discipline per se from exercise of free speech, provided they would be willing to participate, with the fools' caps firmly in place, in a true debate forum open to all students, perhaps led by the law school's constitutional law professors, no television cameras or video cameras allowed, in which these students will give an appropriate account of themselves to the members of the student body who wish to participate. As we assume that would enable an airing of frustrations and difficulties, while also better educating students to responsible exercise of free speech, it would be a more salutary result than the action taken thus far, which will only serve to push underground obvious tensions abounding at this institution. Race relations may or may not be at the heart of this sort of statement. Saying to the world, "This is not who we are," says exactly nothing. We do not know you. It may be you, Sooner, more than you realize, and you simply do not know it or recognize the problem.

The problem appears to derive from failure of honest and free debate on topics which are significant to the times. And that may be you, Sooner.

We say again that we are very concerned about the nature of bullying in this country by the major news networks, and especially the 24-hour news networks, particularly in the realm of exercise of free speech. They are commercial networks and do not set the community standard for any form of behavior and certainly do not set the bounds of free speech. What can and cannot be stated on television does not set or constrict the bounds for what is permissible in American society at large. What is or is not said in England, for instance, does not determine the law of this country. There is an obvious direct correlation between increasing gun violence in this country in recent decades and the advent of the 24-hour news networks, beginning in 1979. Their specialty is the sensational story of the day. Without it, they fail. And they eat their own when some one of their number is not properly playing their game. There is not enough informative news during most days to fill more than an hour or two of broadcast time. The rest is therefore comprised most usually of fluff or yellow journalism or faux debate, which usually devolves only to yelling matches akin to professional wrestling.

These networks, as a group, are breeding the reactionary violence in the country, the shooting of the day or week. They concoct it. And they are out of order.

It is they who are most responsible for curtailing American freedom and pitting one American against the other, neighbor against neighbor, cop against citizen, citizen against cop, sometimes family members against each other, often for no more than exercise of expression of ideas under our First Amendment, a hell of a thing but entirely necessary to our society. Without the discord in society thus caused, the networks have little to report because they cannot understand complex issues very well, obviously, and refuse to approach those issues in more than ephemeral terms or find them boring after a short time and wish to return to the fluff and personality contests, reminiscent of high school.

That is the damnable thing, that this small group of very wealthy and privileged people, earning absurd salaries rarely revealed to the public, can set the tone, by literal brainwashing, of the entire culture until the country is a disgrace to any objective standard of freedom and democracy. The Founders would find the country, to a large degree, a foreign place, a society of the type which they fought against in the Revolution.

The fact that these college students in a prominent University engage in such reprehensible speech, unabashed, suggests the very thing of which we write, reaction to suppression of free speech. Watch out for the idiot who says, "Watch your language," or the equivalent, or complains of "threats" when none there are in the context of a legitimate complaint. That person is a threat to your freedom and has an ulterior motive which goes far beyond speech, into the realm of personal manipulation and exercise of power over another, a form of mental enslavement to their view of things. They are certainly anything but liberal. It is a far better thing to have these students state in a semi-private context the things they said than to have violence erupt. And the suppression of speech leads precisely to that result somewhere down the line, if not by these students, by someone else, possibly outside the community of Norman, Oklahoma. The last line of intellectual defense is speech. Remove that and what would you expect?

It is one thing to direct a racial epithet to someone personally in a heated situation, plainly meaning it in an offensive manner, such that violence is an imminent and natural result. It is another, actually to engage in violence. But to punish anyone for exercise of speech in such a semi-private context is far worse than the speech itself. That is the vilest of all things to come out of this episode. We would expect more from any State University.

We hope therefore that either the University of Oklahoma will show some better judgment in this matter or that the students will sue the University for reinstatement for violation of their First Amendment rights. The University, itself, obviously has a problem which needs to be addressed. Precipitous action does not undo the problem. It makes it worse.

To find that the speech in this context, again assuming that the students in question themselves did not encourage the dissemination of the tape, somehow "created a hostile learning environment" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, is to beg the question for the fact of the private context of the speech. For at bottom, the matter still involves speech, not action, and it is difficult, given the types of conduct which goes on at university and college campuses involving outrageous speech on occasion, for time immemorial, to regard any speech, not deliberately interrupting the actual teaching of classes and the like, as falling within the ambit of that standard. This unfortunate bit of speech could thus be used later to bar speakers from campuses, as in the old days, because they "create a hostile learning environment". Those speakers, at some schools, may represent points of view which are entirely unobjectionable in any rational sense. It sets therefore a very bad precedent, as barring free speech always does. We cannot carve exceptions because of subjective reaction or taking a straw vote on an issue or in reliance on public reaction in an emotionally charged setting. That is why we have a Constitution with due process and free speech as its most carefully guarded tenets. To cave in to the mob mentality is to give up freedom, as surely as did the racists and lynchers of a hundred years ago and more.

Folksy sounding comments online, which apparently derive from some dumbed down talk show on the topic, to the effect that free speech is not free and has "consequences", is for Argentina, dummy, not this country. Go there and be happy. Free speech in our country means free speech, without any consequence whatsoever, or the First Amendment is meaningless, and so is the Constitution, and so is the flag, and so is the United States. The only proper limits are actual threats of violence to another or defamation, both needing proof in a court of law, not folksy twisting to silence people. If you do not subscribe to the Constitution, go somewhere else where you will feel more comfortable, where you can shoot off your guns with impunity and be happy-happy as in the days of slavery in the antebellum South.

The incident was captured on video by someone seeking to "expose" an issue only because they have been taught, as in the proverbial Skinnerian box, by the 24-hour news networks that such is the way of things now, another vile and despicable thing, chilling exercise of freedom of speech, increasing thereby the likelihood of actual violence. While it is not illegal to tape such episodes, it should not be encouraged by the networks, who thrive on this sort of yellow journalism, probing private conduct of private citizens not doing anything illegal, having thereby made yellow journalism a respectable practice in this country, one to which the country has slowly become inured through time until all vestiges of former exercise of free speech have been shredded and left by the wayside, leaving only this sort of reactionary garbage as an example of it, which, nevertheless, to avoid hypocrisy, we must defend.

Racism will not go away by precipitous action or exposure and humiliation of private citizens acting in private or semi-private contexts where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. That only makes the matter worse. Understanding, discussion, exchange of ideas between people of different races, study of cultural differences in an appropriate setting, is the only way to ameliorate such problems. Whoever taped this episode ought reflect and consider that it would have been far better and more serving to humanity to approach the persons in question after the fact, express disapproval of the chant, assuming that was the point, and seek to argue about it, not tape it like a tattle-tale in grade school telling the teacher of some bad, bad, bad behavior.

All of you need to grow up, the chanters, the digitized video-tapers, and the networks who encourage both sorts of conduct.

We note that on February 8, 1915, D. W. Griffith's racist "Birth of a Nation", the first feature film to come from Hollywood, based on the two racist novels of Shelby's Thomas Dixon, had its premiere in Los Angeles. As a society, we have come a long way since those dark days. To try to sweep a continuing problem in the society under the rug by denying individuals freedom of speech, however, is to turn back the clock yet again to those dark days, to conjure up images of suppression, damnable in any context at any time, against any citizen of any color in the United States. It would have been a greater wrong for exhibiters to refuse to show the film for its racist content, even though, in fact, in that instance, the film spawned riots in numerous towns and cities across the country. People have to learn to be mature when hearing speech and viewing content with which they disagree, or, in that instance, in emulative reaction to what they saw on the screen. That is also part of the growth process in a democracy.

There can be no "zero tolerance" for exchange of ideas peacefully conveyed, no matter how vile or mean-spirited the content. If the standard were otherwise, then Fox News, in our opinion, as a network, should have been banned by the FCC years ago. But we would not support that either though disagreeing with probably 95 percent of that network's content, though admittedly we no longer watch it and have not for years, to avoid being upset, feeling the need then to break the tv set, which is hardly to blame. We restrict ourselves to slow trickles from the internet, that we might pace our reaction.

As for Oklahoma, especially, all of this time on this silly matter ought be devoted to global warming and whether a certain Senator, obviously bordering on senility, ought be retired from office for his consistent inability to understand the issue of global warming while taking his largest contributions from Big Energy to perpetuate that misunderstanding. If anyone ought be expelled for vile and even personally defamatory speech, he should.

Joseph & Stewart Alsop discuss the new phase into which Soviet-Western conflict was passing. Phase one had been the period of "self-delusion", during which appeasement of the Soviets was the rule. Phase two had been attempts to halt Soviet expansion through political and economic measures, culminating in ERP. The new phase would entail defensive military pacts, including basing arrangements and coordination of war plans.

The first step would be formation of a defensive alliance between Western Europe and the U.S.—ultimately to become NATO in April, 1949. There was unanimity within the Administration as to the need for such an alliance, albeit with some disagreement on the form of it.

Most Western European leaders were pressing for the realization of the idea proposed by British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, that a union be formed of the Western European powers, starting with France, Britain, and the Benelux countries. Its urgency had been underscored by the Communist takeover of Czechoslovakia and the entreaties by Moscow to Finland. It had been discussed in the Brussels conference that the proposed union would not be strong enough, that the U.S. would need join. The proposal had been greeted in Washington with general approval.

The American policy-makers wanted generally the same approach that was used to formulate ERP, that is, first a plan submitted by Western Europe, then backed up by the U.S. with a combined European-American military staff.

The new policy would effectively deal with the initial problems of Iceland and Greenland bases, control of which was disputed between the U.S., Iceland and Denmark. It would also remove the remaining Portuguese objections to the strategic use of the Azores and would permit agreement with France and Belgium on defense of North Africa and the Belgian Congo.

Most importantly, it would solve the problem of Soviet expansion into Western Europe by military means.

Marquis Childs tells of the fantasy of push-button warfare having outrun in the public mind the reality. The atomic bomb was producing an illusory sense of security, reminiscent of the Maginot Line for France prior to 1940.

The report of the Congressional Aviation Policy Board stated that the longest range of any bomber in use was less than 2,000 miles and that the B-29 had a range of only 1,600 miles. The report did not say it, but the same was true of guided missiles, with the development of a missile which could be directed with accuracy to a target hundreds of miles away remaining years distant in the future. The scientists disagreed on whether it might be ten or twenty years before such a missile could be realized.

For the sake of the current House Science & Technology Committee and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, let us just say that it is all Buck Rogers fiction and so what us worry? Let's not bother. It could be fifty years before those missiles will be developed by the other side, maybe never. Let's just sleep tight, not let the bedbugs bite, and play wait-see. If the bogeyman should come in the night, you won't know it anyway.

And, by logical extension, when the Big Wave starts to dribble onto shore, we shall have plenty of time to build us a Big Sea Wall, like they have down yonder in New Orleans. Everything'll be hunky-dory, right as rain.

Mr. Childs finds a danger in the delusion of technological-fix security because of the conflict with Russia. The technology to conquer Russia in the event of war was non-existent. With the takeover of Czechoslovakia, Russia appeared to be on a timetable to take over all of Europe. In such a conquest, the U.S. would be on the outside. The extant V-1 and V-2 rockets developed by the Nazis, which the Soviets had from Peenemunde, with perfected guidance systems, could be brought to bear with greater accuracy than that developed by the Nazis, launched thus against London from across the English Channel.

The political conquest of Europe had to be prevented. To prevent Russian expansion once it got a foothold would be far more costly in lives and money than World War II. He favors therefore development of air power and other forms of military power for the purpose.

For the nonce, the delusion of American push-button warfare did not deceive the planners at the Kremlin.

A letter writer comments on "A 'Dead Bird' and a Puzzle" of March 4, and supports Congressman L. M. Rivers of South Carolina in his statement to Republicans that they should stop going after the President as he was already "a dead bird" with his civil rights program. Mr. Rivers wanted the Republicans to desist in their efforts to pass the components of the civil rights program recommended by the President and thereby hang the albatross of it around the President's neck.

The writer disagrees with the notion that there was a "puzzle" involved, that plainly President Truman would bow out of consideration at the convention and leave the convention to draft the only candidate who could win, General Eisenhower.

He is willing to bet his last clean shirt that, otherwise, Senator Taft or Governor Dewey would become the next President.

Come on, pal, bet more than that. You seem so sure of yourself. How about a shiny new car?

We suppose that there may be some fool out there who might think or suggest that because President Truman was heard at some point to express upset at "the damned niggers", he should have been a "dead bird". We advise you to wet down your powder, cool your ardor, and think through the substance of the matter, realizing how badly manipulated you are toward ephemera while missing the point. It is not what people say which counts, especially in private, but rather what they do.

A letter writer comments on another letter writer's vote for Senator Harry F. Byrd as being well qualified as a presidential candidate, finds that Senator Byrd, as political boss of Virginia, could more easily control his own political bailiwick, especially with only two-thirds of the eligible voters voting, than he would be able to do nationally. He asserts that there were 50 more qualified North Carolinians than Senator Byrd.

A letter from C.A. Paul, who once wrote a column for The News, proposes formation of a society whose membership would be limited to those who lived south of the Mason-Dixon Line and had never been west of Topeka, Kan.,—eliminating thereby Dick and Perry—for the purpose of compelling white Californians to recognize the socio-economic and political equality of Mexicans and Japanese.

That's very funny, Mr. Paul. Why don't we form a society to deny you the incidents of citizenship and deport you to Mexico as thus a non-equal?

We are not alone, incidentally, in finding your views obnoxious.

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.