The Charlotte News
Saturday, January 15, 1949
FOUR EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that in China, Tientsin had fallen to the Communists, a critical blow to the Government of Chiang Kai-Shek. Radio reports described the city as being one of death and desolation, with many civilians killed and hospitals jammed. All Americans in the city appeared safe. Peiping, it was thought, might be the next major target.
In response to the previous day's eight points for surrender laid down by Communist chairman Mao Tse-Tung, the Nationalist Cabinet entered meetings to discuss the matter. Unofficial response was that the terms were "very fierce" and left no room for bargaining.
In Durban, Union of South Africa, Indians fled the city as race rioting between native blacks and Indians, a minority group in the country, pervaded the suburbs, claiming 300 lives, both natives and Indians, and 400 injured. Some had been stoned to death, others burned to death or shot. One white was killed but whites were generally not involved in the fracas. The city's Indian quarter had been wrecked by the rioting, which had begun the prior Thursday after a young boy was injured by an Indian market peddler. Rumors had spread quickly that he had been killed and the rioting began in the city, then extended to the suburbs before police could arrive on the scene. Some of the natives shouted Zulu warrior chants as they rioted. Police had been able to slow the rioting but not to halt it. South African military units had also been summoned to quell the violence.
On the Island of Rhodes, Egyptians began negotiations this date for release of 3,000 of their troops trapped by Israeli forces at Faluja in the Negev Desert. The previous day, both Egypt and Israel had agreed to halt all offensive military operations during the talks and to respect each other's national security. Dr. Ralph Bunche of the U.N. was presiding as mediator over the conference. In addition to the issue of the troops trapped in Faluja, the larger issue to be decided next was regarding the order of the U.N. for both sides to retreat to their lines held October 14, prior to the great push in the Negev by the Israelis, begun October 15. Armistice lines and reduction of troop strengths were to be determined prior to an armistice agreement.
It sounds like there won't be any more conflict over there. That's a relief. They can all live in peace now throughout the Middle East. It's going to be swell.
In London, Conservatives, Liberals, and Laborites joined in Parliament to criticize Britain's policy toward Palestine in sending ships to Trans-Jordan in response to the shooting down by the Israelis of five RAF planes the previous Friday in the border region of Egypt and Israel.
British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin stated that Britain and France had reached an agreement which offered hope for world peace. No details were provided. Foreign Minister Robert Schuman of France said that Mr. Bevin revealed also a "happy fact" regarding Indonesia, but declined to say specifically what it was. Speculation ran that he referred to a new American plan for peace between the Dutch and the Indonesian Republic.
State Department officials hoped that a new "allies only" label to be placed on American arms sent overseas would coax Sweden from its neutral position in the cold war, as it could not receive the arms as long as it remained in that status. Sweden had urged Norway and Denmark likewise to adopt a neutral position and not join the proposed North Atlantic Alliance.
At Fort Bragg in North Carolina, a paratrooper jumpmaster would be recommended for the soldier's medal for his part in the rescue effort in advance of the crash of the C-82 transport the previous day, for his "coolness in an emergency", ordering the 36 paratroopers who survived to jump from the plane. The paratrooper jumpmaster had stayed with the plane when it crashed, but survived.
One of the surviving paratroopers was reported to have requested to jump again the previous night, but his request was denied.
Secretary of State Marshall, still recovering from the removal of his kidney the previous month, left his home in Pinehurst, N.C., for a vacation in San Juan, Puerto Rico. He appeared in good spirits. The President had suggested the trip. Secretary Marshall would step down from his post officially on January 20. The President had visited with him in Pinehurst the previous Wednesday.
From Cincinnati, it was reported by the National Association of Men's Apparel Clubs that the "bold look" in men's clothing was passe and the "dominant look", with colors of the male peacock, now in vogue. The Association adopted a resolution that there would be different colors for each month, "airline grey" for January, "Valentine red" for February, and "Irish green" for March. Since women bought 80 to 85 percent of the clothing men wore, the Association wanted to conduct ad campaigns for men's clothing in women's magazines.
In Charlotte, Efird's Department Store was set to begin extensive remodeling and expansion, costing $100,000, to be "bigger and better" to serve you and you and you for years and years and years to come. Work was started the previous day and was expected to be completed by April 1, unless that proved a foolish deadline, in which case, who knows?
Parenthetically, we note that W. J. Cash had his book signing session for The Mind of the South at Efird's in February, 1941. Not very many people showed up though. They wanted blood and guts reading material, not that dry stuff.
And they got plenty of it in the ensuing four and a half years, in part because too few read the dry stuff.
In Baltimore, stage and film actress Mae West left the hospital at her own request six hours after entering, still only in "fair" condition and against the wishes of doctors, so that she could continue to perform in her own "Diamond Lil" stage production and not cause 50 others to be put out of work. She had been hospitalized, suffering from an acute abdominal obstruction.
In London, a vegetable stand operator at Covent Garden was suddenly agape at finding in the mail two invitations for the President's inauguration, immediately booked flight to Washington for his wife and him for January 20. When newspapers found out about the invitations, calls were placed to the White House and the head of the inauguration committee, Melvin Hildreth, found that the invitations were intended for another couple of the same name, owners of an export-import business, who also had an office in Covent Garden. Mr. Hildreth, however, said that he was going to assure that the vegetable stall operator got two tickets anyway, even if he had to take them from his own family's allotment.
It was apropos, as the fall of 1948 was the season of the vegetable and Cinderellas in the United States anyway.
On the editorial page, "Silent Americans" tells of the AMA saying that there was no great hue and cry from the American middle class for government medical service. It was correct in the sense that the middle class had no lobbies in Congress and so presented no collective voice on any issue. They were the meek but inherited nothing but trouble.
Eternally, they were caught in the middle between farmers and labor boosting prices and wages, thus consumer prices. They were the property owners, the primary consumers, the church-goers, the stable, fixed portion of society, asking no favors while making their living through intelligence and energy.
They did not collectively demand government medical care, despite seeing the poor receive it for free and the wealthy able to afford all they needed. A catastrophic illness in the middle class caused the individual to have to mortgage the present and the future.
But the lack of organized protest did not mean that they were happy with the present system. It only meant that the American middle class remained heterogeneous, did not do "anything collectively except try to be good citizens."
We suppose that you could call them the silent majority, or something
"Blueprint for Agriculture" tells of a thorough survey of the state's farm and forest land having been conducted for the first time by 252 soil conservation supervisors in 86 of the 100 counties of the state and presented during the week to the State Soil Conservation supervisors, to determine whether the land was being used most efficiently and if not, what to do to remedy the situation. It provides the statistics which they presented. The report supplied a blueprint for better farming in the state for the future.
"Fruits of Competition" tells of Columbia Records having invented the previous year a new phonograph record, ready to replace the 78 rpm disc, prone to breakage and scratching, with limited fidelity. The new 33 1/3 records of the same overall size had grooves a third the size of those of the 78's, one-thousandth of an inch, and, with longer playing at slower speed, could pack a great deal more music on the disc, 27 to 45 minutes worth, depending on size, with better fidelity. Columbia also had a seven-inch record to play at the same slower speed. But these records could not be played without a new turntable and needle.
RCA
Both companies claimed that their records would produce superior music, and had offered blueprints to competitors for producing the records and the record players on which to play them, without royalties, to avoid an industry war. But so far, there was no indication that the two companies would join forces so that you could have all three speeds at once on your turntable, along with flip-over needles as well.
So the result might be that there would be three phonographs in every home, rather than the traditional one.
It concludes: "Ah, Competition!"
That is going to be confusing, i'n't? They better do something about that.
With this television video
They're slowing everything down on the phonograph, it seems, while everything outside is going faster and faster. And how do you listen to that slower music? Do you need a special speaker which speeds it back up again?
We'll stick with the 78's
"Acheson and Hiss" finds that Dean Acheson's statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he remained a friend to Alger Hiss would increase his stature, but nevertheless asks whether it was a necessary and wise thing to do with the pending Federal criminal trial of Mr. Hiss for perjury.
HUAC and press reports had created an impression that Mr. Hiss had not been completely loyal to the country. Mr. Acheson's statement of friendship to him did not compromise his own unquestionable loyalty, indeed suggested his loyalty to his friends, a sign of integrity.
Mr. Acheson had a good record, had changed from his former belief that Russia could be appeased and now took a tough stand against the Soviet. And there was no questioning of his intelligence or ability.
But, it concludes, if Mr. Hiss were to be found guilty of perjury, Mr. Acheson's admission of close personal friendship could prove problematic in the future.
—Yeah, Bob, make careful note of that.
—Yeah, we can make some real headway with that once they get this Commie. Get 'em all at once then, you know.
—Yeah. By the way, any more vegetables on the horizon, Bob?
—Oh, yeah, that's right. Have to wait awhile.
—A dam?
—A dam, in the garden. How's that going to work, Bob?
Drew Pearson takes a look at the
81st Congress, finds it looking good, with a talented array of new
House members, many of whom were war veterans. He looks at two
newsmen who had entered the House, Harry Davenport of Pennsylvania
and Chuck Gross of Iowa. Jerry Ford of Michigan was a "healthy
replacement" for Bartel Jonkman, "one of the most
backward of the 80th Congress." Thurman Crook, the only "legalized
crook" in Congress, had been a school teacher
In the South, Thurmond Chatham of North Carolina was a wealthy blanket and textiles manufacturer with an outstanding war record. Charles Bennett and Syd Herring of Florida, Carl Elliott of Alabama, Hugo Sims of South Carolina, and John Golden of Kentucky all promised able service.
In the industrial East, Foster
Furcolo of Massachusetts, Harry O'Neill of Pennsylvania, Abraham
Ribicoff
In the Rocky Mountain
In the Southwest, Harold Patton of
Arizona, John Miles of New Mexico, Dixie Gilmer, Tom Steed, and
George Wilson of Oklahoma, Lloyd Bentsen
Marquis Childs relates of a paper interview with Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, a first for the Secretary since assuming the post in 1947. Mr. Forrestal, until 1940, had been a partner in the powerful financial firm of Dillon, Read on Wall Street. As such, he was often portrayed as a spokesman for big business, seeking to restore private ownership and the old cartel system in Germany's Ruhr. He had also been accused of being anti-Zionist and imperialistic for his stance that Middle Eastern oil was essential to American security and the success of the Marshall Plan. He had been linked with Secretary of State Marshall and Undersecretary Robert Lovett as a trio of warmongers.
He had replied in writing to Mr. Childs's written questions, stating that he had not, since 1940, had any interest at all in Dillon, Read and had no plans after his Government service. He foresaw no likelihood of American investment, in any event, in the Ruhr. He expressed no opinion on restoring Ruhr industry to German ownership. He believed that peace could be maintained in the ensuing two to three years through maintenance of adequate military strength, together with calmness and reason. The Defense Department's role in foreign policy was only to advise the President, as a member of the National Security Council, of steps necessary to integrate the domestic, foreign, and military policies to enable cooperation in assuring national security. He would not comment on the personal attacks on him in recent weeks.
Mr. Childs suggests that one reason for the attacks might be that other men desired his post. But even if the attacks were to subside, he would remain a controversial figure, as Mr. Childs promises to elucidate in the next column.
James Marlow explains the controversy over the size of the Air Force, whether 48 groups, as allowed by the President's recommended 15 billion dollar defense appropriation ceiling, its former 55 groups, its present 60 groups, or the 70 groups for which appropriations were made by the previous Congress after hearing Air Force Secretary Stuart Symington testify that such was essential for proper preparedness against air attack at home or in Western Europe. The President was opposed to the expansion. Secretary Forrestal, initially opposed to the expansion, allowed, in compromise finally, that 66 groups would be enough. But the Congress had gone along with Secretary Symington.
When the President sent his budget message to Congress, he stressed that it was the size and number of planes which counted rather than the number of combat groups, and that the reduced group number afforded by the 15-billion dollar budget was thus adequate with larger planes. Secretary Symington stated that he would support the President, while many in the Air Force and the Congress still wanted 70 groups.
Mr. Marlow explains that the size of a group could vary based on the size of the planes within it, the smaller the planes, as fighters, the greater the number in the group.
The President's Air Policy Commission had recommended a year earlier that by 1952, 70 groups would be essential, as the Commission believed that by "A-Day", January 1, 1953, the Russians would have a sufficient complement of atomic bombs to be capable of launching a sudden attack on the U.S., necessitating adequate response. To reach that target, the Air Force stated that the contracts for the planes would need to be initiated right away as it would take five years for the manufacturers to expand their plants and then build the planes, with older planes constantly in need of replacement.
Samuel Grafton, no longer carried by The News, again discusses the Dutch attack on Indonesia, transpiring between December 20 and the first week of January, as having stirred anti-Western sentiment throughout Asia and given invaluable propaganda to the Communists. Apologists for the attack were seeking to justify it as designed both to thwart Communist and Japanese influence within the Indonesian Republic. Mr. Grafton finds this dual argument too much not to challenge credulity on its face, that it reminded of Hitler's dual claim that the Jews were both Communists and bankers, that one of the two lines ought be dropped.
The issue was whether the U.S., not a colonial power, was going to take the initiative to counteract the smear by association caused by the Dutch ally within the Western Alliance. He urges that if the Dutch, themselves, did not realize that they needed to find a way to back out of the situation to preserve face before the court of world opinion, then the Congress ought take up the issue to decide whether the Dutch ought be cut off from Marshall Plan aid, especially if that aid was helping the Netherlands in the action against Indonesia. Such Congressional action ought precede the Asian conference on Indonesia set to begin on January 20 in New Delhi. The issue for the Congress to communicate visibly to that conference and the world was, he concludes, freedom.
A letter writer complains of the editorial "Mob Action in Randolph" for "overplaying" its hand in that it condemned the would-be lynch party in Randolph County which disbanded without incident after they learned that the prisoner who was the object of their hunt, a black man accused of killing a white farmer, had been taken to another county at the direction of the Sheriff.
The writer, the aunt of the victim in the case, thinks that since the accused had confessed to the crime, a shotgun killing of the victim, whose body she had viewed after the fact, he was not merely a suspect, as the piece had said, but was the killer in fact, in possession of several hundred dollars of the victim's money, that lynching was therefore too good for him. She stresses that she was not for lynching and that two wrongs did not make a right, but objected to the way the newspapers treated lynchings with so much sympathy for the accused while not treating the original crime in the same manner.
She thinks that Federal anti-murder and anti-rape laws would be more in order than a Federal anti-lynch law, and would do away with the need for the latter—though not explaining her reasoning on that point.
The editors respond that arguments about the "fiendishness" of the original crime were beside the point, that the newspaper agreed that some crimes were more heinous than others and that the instant case was particularly brutal. And, they add, if murderers and rapists ever were to go scot free in the South, as too often lynchers did, then the newspaper would become just as outraged.
While it is obvious that the letter writer, with personal feelings involved in the recent case, was overwrought with emotion, her suggestion regarding Federalizing common law crimes would, generally, not be possible within the Constitutional powers of Congress. Some deprivation of civil rights, motivated by racial, religious, or other recognized bias in commission of a particular crime, or an act taking place within the stream of interstate commerce, such as robbery of a Federally-insured bank or violations of Federal anti-racketeering statutes, or on Federal land or against a functionary of the Federal Government, interfering with the power to raise armies, or the like, would have to be evident for the act to fall within the ambit of Congressional jurisdiction to enact proscriptive criminal laws. Furthermore, the Congress has historically been loath to intrude on the traditional police powers of the states, which regulate such ordinary criminal cases, absent a compelling need as in the case of lynching, justified under deprivation of civil rights, where states were not shouldering their proper policing, prosecutorial and juridical responsibilities in all cases.
A letter writer responds favorably to the editorial on Superior Court Judge Frank Armstrong's criticism of the State's parole system, allowing felons convicted of serious crimes to be released after serving, in many cases, only a small portion of their sentences. But he ventures much further than the editorial or the Judge. He says that for years in many Southern states, the "pardon racket" had been a stepping stone to fortune for governors. There were justifiable pardons in "isolated cases", but hardened criminals, "these cold-blooded fiends in human disguise", and murderers, most of whom, he thinks, received from five to twenty years, ought be put to death. He wants a streamlined court system, with "this sordid parole racket" eliminated.
The letter writer confuses the
concept of parole, whereby a conviction remains on the individual's
record, and a pardon, whereby it is either expunged, the convicted individual is relieved of the disabilities associated with the conviction, or, in the rare
case
So, letter writer, stop being stupid and Neanderthalic.
Try to think for a change and read a
little on the whys and wherefores of things generally before speaking
out against matters which you deem wrong because of one exceptional
story
A letter writer responds to the January 11 editorial on the Israeli downing of five RAF planes over the border region of Israel and Egypt, finds it to have omitted key facts: that Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin and "his clique" had consistently fought against the formation of Israel; that they were alarmed that Israel had whipped Egypt, Iraq, and Trans-Jordan, "all Bevin's stooges"; and that the clique had planned the incident to enable use of American aid money loaned to Britain, to force Israel to give up what it had won. Quoting from the Manchester Guardian, he asks what Britain's planes were doing in the area in the first instance.
To answer the writer's question, the British had already admitted that the purpose of the mission was surveillance.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.