The Charlotte News
Monday, April 4, 1949
FOUR EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that the original seven nations which had agreed to the NATO accord, the U.S., Britain, Canada, France, and the Benelux countries, had joined with Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, and Iceland to sign the treaty, which still had to be ratified by each of the seven initiator nations before it would be effective. Per the Constitution, a two-thirds vote of the Senate was required for U.S. ratification of the treaty. The signing took place at the Government's Departmental Auditorium on Constitution Avenue. Each of the twelve foreign ministers spoke for about five minutes prior to the ceremony. The President then followed with an address of about fifteen minutes duration. Some 1,300 other invited officials of the twelve signatory countries filled the auditorium.
Secretary of State Acheson, hosting the event, said, "From the joining of many wills in one purpose will come new inspiration for the future."
The treaty provided that for the ensuing twenty years an attack on one member nation would be considered an attack on all and that each member would then determine independently how to respond. Military aid by the U.S. to the members was in prospect, but not until the Marshall Plan for rebuilding Western Europe was complete. Some Senators, as Robert Taft of Ohio, who were agreeing to vote for the treaty, however, indicated opposition to military aid. Senator Walter George of Georgia said that he was concerned that the U.S. would be asked pursuant to the treaty to supply troops to garrison the Western European frontiers. He favored only giving of surplus military supplies to the member nations.
Sweden and Eire, though invited, had chosen not to join the pact, and Spain was nixed for its Franco dictatorship.
Two years earlier, the U.S. had signed the Rio pact of Inter-American nations in the Western Hemisphere, pledging similarly mutual defense in the case of attack on any member nation. Both regional defense pacts were recognized under the provisions of the U.N. Charter.
In Tehran, a reliable Iranian military informant said that a Russian regiment had attacked an Iranian Army post in Azerbaijan a few days earlier, resulting in a battle in which the Iranians returned fire against Russian tanks and armored cars. Two Iranians were reported killed and several injured.
The Government reported a one billion dollar surplus at the end of the third fiscal quarter, but the President and Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snyder continued to forecast a final deficit of 600 million dollars by June 30. Revenue had been bolstered in the previous two weeks by delayed receipt of income taxes, due March 15.
In Chicago, a U.S. Government anti-trust suit filed against 24 doctors was dismissed at the request of the prosecutor, though the six primary defendants, eyeglass manufacturers, remained. The Attorney General determined that the doctors, including some from North Carolina, were not properly a part of the class of defendants. The suit charged that the manufacturers and 5,000 eye specialists had fixed prices and accepted kickbacks in violation of Federal anti-trust laws.
In Cleveland, O., police battled with 300 strikers and sympathizers at Fawick Airflex Co. Four pickets were arrested and several others had slight injuries. It was the fourth such clash in a month.
In Columbus, O., twelve persons, including the state director of the Progressive Party, were arrested for contempt in the form of illegal picketing in violation of a court order forbidding same at the American Zinc Oxide plant, following a State court judge having entered an order forbidding picketing after strife at the plant involving members of the Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers Union.
In New York, Mayor William O'Dwyer reported that a city cab drivers' union had made an offer of settlement. More cabs, about 6,000 of the 10,000 normally running at noontime, were on the streets and violence reported in the previous three days of the strike was on the wane.
Newly appointed Senator Frank Graham of North Carolina was taken to the hospital after a cold developed into pneumonia, but was reported in good condition.
Dick Young of The News tells of part of the new Crosstown Boulevard—to become Independence Boulevard—being opened to traffic between 7th Street and S. McDowell Street. Its next link, already begun, was to extend from 7th Street to Monroe Road.
You'll want to try it out in your new lower-priced Kaiser, come tomorrow.
We offer congratulations to all of the participants for a game well played tonight between the University of North Carolina and Villanova University for the N.C.A.A. Tournament championship in basketball. Villanova won 77 to 74 in a deft last half-second shot, following North Carolina having tied the game with an equally deft three-point shot with 4.5 seconds remaining. The last time North Carolina lost in a championship game by a margin so small as three points was in 1946, 43 to 40, to Oklahoma A & M, the first trip for North Carolina to the championship game, inaugurated in 1939.
We pay special appreciation to the North Carolina seniors who remained in school to graduate this year, even though two of them easily could have gone to the professional ranks last year. That is a tribute to their tenacity of purpose and scholarship, and should be a beacon for every young player in college basketball.
Those who continue to harp on the past, the paper classes issue involving some former athletes at the University, which had nothing to do with any of the current players, as the problem was remedied by the University, itself, five years ago, brand themselves as not only badly informed of the facts but also as just a wee bit on the green side when it comes to both college athletics and college scholarship. If all colleges and universities had a clean house in this regard, it would be fine to point a finger, at least, at one University, even if it disserves the facts when the University revealed the problem and forthwith undertook remedial steps to eliminate it. But that clean house at other places is hardly the case. And, regardless, the problem appears in this instance to have occurred without any complicity on the part of the basketball staff or the football staff, extending through several different coaching tenures in each case, the basketball program being known through time, the last 55 years, as having one of the best graduation rates in all of college basketball. Rather, the primary blame has been ascribed to a couple of errant former instructors, whose hearts, perhaps, got the better of their wisdom. It hardly affects the scholarship status of the entire University, which still enjoys a prestigious reputation among academicians, deservedly so, as it has for the past century.
Leave the young men and women alone, whether student-athletes or simply students, to pursue and enjoy their college studies, difficult enough as they are, and tend first your own scholarship garden, which, no doubt, if you fall among those ardent critics and harpers, is full of weeds, before continuing to stress, ad nauseam, a snapshot taken five years ago of a little patch of crabgrass, long since tended, in otherwise fecund campestral verdure, in the fall always showing its particoloured brilliance. If you do not believe that, take a walk some fine fall or spring afternoon through the Arboretum on the University campus in Chapel Hill, relax, and enjoy a Coca-Cola.
In any event, it was a great season for both UNC and Villanova. One had to lose. Only one school and team wins each year. UNC has won three very close ones, in 1957, 1982, and 1993, plus two which were not so close, and now has lost two very close ones, plus three more, though only one, in 1968, which was a bad loss at the end of a great season. Villanova has won two cliffhangers, the first in 1985, upsetting heavily favored defending national champion Georgetown by two points, and also lost one, in 1971, by six points to U.C.L.A.
So, UNC will have to await next year to hing or hang someone's bacon up high in the rafters, along with the other five latten hangers. And, we shall look forward to it. There is no shame in getting to the Final Four and losing, in either the semi-finals or the finals. Few teams have that privilege. Remember 2008.
By the way, to avoid misunderstanding, should you wonder about the bacon
On the editorial page, "Blueprint for a President" examines the task of the University Board of Trustees in searching for a successor to president Frank Porter Graham, appointed recently to fill the Senate seat of deceased J. Melville Broughton. It posits that he needed primarily to be a man of learning, a good executive, have the skills of both a diplomat and politician, be a firm believer in academic freedom, of physical and mental vitality, a humanitarian, possess a strong Christian code of ethics and morals, and be a student of the South, though not a provincial Southerner.
It suggests that seeking a man of stature, as Columbia had sought and obtained the services of General Eisenhower and the University of Pennsylvania, Harold Stassen, would be inadvisable unless the person also was more than just a famous person. It hopes that the Trustees would proceed with appropriate deliberation and care in the selection.
"Truman's Bad Timing" finds that the President's timing had been off several times during his Administration, as exampled by his having brought the civil rights program before the Congress, starting with the Senate rule change on cloture of debate, at the start of the Congressional term rather than waiting until other legislation was first passed, lending strength to the Southern Democratic filibuster, resulting in a watered-down compromise whereby a two-thirds vote of the membership, rather than the Senators present, could effect cloture on all matters except rule changes of the Senate.
Another example was the relaxation of consumer credit requirements to enable installment-buying on easier terms and of stock trading to enable margin buying on 50 percent cash rather than the former requirement of 75 percent. Both rulings recognized a reduction in inflationary trends. But then the President renewed his demands for economic controls on the premise that the deflationary trend was only temporary. As a result, businessmen across the country wondered whether the President was merely exalting consistency over logic or simply did not understand what was taking place.
"Another Craze Hits Us" tells of the Pyramid Clubs having reached Charlotte, a type of chain letter in which people gathered in clubs with a $2 admission charge and sought the top prize of everyone else's admission fees. It had been banned as an illegal lottery by the Atlanta police but accepted as legal by a judge in Los Angeles. The Chief of Police in Charlotte had deemed it an illegal lottery, but reports had it that City officials were participating.
Thus far, it was going strong and nobody had claimed foul. But cynical observers believed that it would only take another week before the members of the clubs began to realize that very few acquired any profit from the scheme.
"Pessimistic Pearson" finds Drew Pearson potentially right or wrong when he recently related in his column that some strategists within the Defense Department were of the opinion that the risk of war was greater than at any time since Pearl Harbor for the fact that the NATO accord would produce across Europe two lines of opposing fortifications which could eventually clash and because the Italian, French and other Western Communists had been slipping away from Moscow, causing the Russians potentially to be desirous of war while the iron was still hot.
The piece finds that, indeed, if war was desirable by the Soviets within the ensuing twenty years, they had better get about it before the Western democracies had fully rearmed under the NATO pact. That, it discerns, was the greatest threat from the pact, that it could push Russia into war. It also concludes, however, that it was a risk which the Western democracies had to take rather than potentially suffer being picked off one by one by the Soviets.
Drew Pearson tells of there having been a lot of petty bickering among the three members of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, who foresaw a definite depression in 1950 and 1951 unless immediate steps were undertaken to forestall it.
The Council had been created in 1946 to advise the President on economic trends and head off the dramatic boom and bust cycles in the economy which had beset the country for the previous fifty years.
The country, since V-J Day, had ridden the crest of an economic wave because of the release of pent-up demand during the war and for the cold war having driven production both industrially and agriculturally, the latter to feed the world, thereby to ward off the effects of Communist propaganda seeking to take over Europe.
The Council had determined that pent-up demand for consumer goods was reaching its end and that expenditures on European aid would taper off within another year, in combination triggering depression. The psychological impact of inflation also was a factor. Though prices at present were falling, that concomitant was certain to hurt small business, lending to a depression, as the consumer awaiting still lower prices tended not to buy.
John Clark on the Council usually aligned with Leon Keyserling, while chairman Dr. Edwin Nourse tended to be the most conservative of the three. They had managed to heal their differences to make recommendations to avoid depression: by convincing farmers to grow larger crops and accept somewhat lower support prices, reducing consumer food bills while achieving reasonable return to farmers; convincing business to accept lower prices and stress volume sales to achieve profits; and persuading labor leaders not to seek wage increases which would trigger the spiral of inflation.
Messrs. Clark and Keyserling, however, doubted the Government's power of persuasion toward these desirable ends, favoring Government incentives to achieve them. Dr. Nourse agreed with the package of incentives they proposed, which included increased Social Security benefits, increased minimum wage to 75 cents per hour, low-cost housing through Government subsidies, aid to education, and stockpiling of critical materials.
New York Congressmen Arthur Klein and Eugene Keogh would lead a House investigation of illegal wiretapping, hoping to pass legislation to have each device numbered as with guns.
Joseph & Stewart Alsop again examine the possibilities of the power struggle in Moscow in the event of the death of ailing Josef Stalin, who had reportedly suffered four strokes in 1948. As they concluded on Saturday, the likely result, based on the report of the Italian Communist, Reale, was that rather than one man, such as V. M. Molotov, becoming sole leader, the mantle would likely fall to three groups of leaders.
Should the struggle for power turn as bitter as that between Stalin and Trotsky in the wake of Lenin's death, then it could have far-reaching effects within the Soviet satellites. For instance, Marshal Tito might back one clique over the other two to regain favor in the Politburo. Other satellites, eager for the same independence enjoyed by Tito and Yugoslavia, might follow suit.
The struggle could lead to a withdrawal behind Russia's own borders or to a war to enable the leadership to escape too close scrutiny at home by the people. For the present, they conclude, the West had to arm and wait, and watch. "The end is not yet."
Stalin would live another four years, until March, 1953, seven years to the day after Winston Churchill's "iron curtain" speech on March 5, 1946 at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo. Initially, he would be replaced by Nikita Khrushchev as Communist Party General Secretary and by Georgy Malenkov, one of the leaders of the three cliques suggested by the Alsops, as Chairman of the Council of Ministers in the Politburo, with Nikolai Vosnesensky, V. M. Molotov, and Nikolai Bulganin, each also within the three cliques mentioned by the Alsops, as First Deputies of the Council.
Khrushchev would ultimately emerge to consolidate Stalin's power as both Party Secretary and Chairman in 1958, five years after the death of Stalin, positions he would retain until 1964, losing great prestige in Moscow after the standoff with the United States in the Cuban Missile Crisis of October, 1962, followed by the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the United States, a major goal of President Kennedy, achieved in August, 1963, neither of which were appealing to the hawks within the Politburo.
Marquis Childs examines the cast of characters in Washington for the signing of the NATO accord, with initial focus on Winston Churchill, not formally a part of the official group, but whose presence was remarkable as Conservative Leader of the British opposition in Parliament. In contrast to his patrician personality was Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, from a polar opposite social and economic position, a traditionally hard bargainer.
Italian Foreign Minister Count Carlo Sforza was a traditional European, with culture and urbanity, as well as unshakable convictions, despite having endured Italian Fascism for twenty years through 1943, seven years of it spent in exile within the U.S., lecturing on the ill fate of his country.
Foreign Minister of France Robert Schuman looked the part of someone battered and harried but still resolute, as his country emerged from the war.
There were also younger men, as Gustav Rasmussen of Denmark and Lester Pearson of Canada, of a different generation from Count Sforza. The list of key diplomats from the 12 signatory nations was long.
Mr. Childs concludes: "This is a time to look forward bravely and hopefully no matter what the inward reservations. It is one of those ceremonial tableaux that punctuate history and, since hope springs eternal, it may even be something more than that."
A letter writer finds Mayor Herbert Baxter's blast at his mayoral opponent in the coming election, Victor Shaw, to be the equivalent of a prize fighter taunting his opponent before the fight had started. He supports Mr. Shaw and urges everyone to vote.
A letter writer thanks the newspaper for its publicity given a meeting at his church.
A letter writer finds general opinion supportive of the newspaper's editorial re Frank Graham's Senatorial appointment and suggests that the public ought be better informed about what a president of the University was supposed to do.
The editors refer him to the above editorial of this date on the matter of selecting a new president.
If it were left to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the candidate would have to be approved by vote of the whole country. He's real smart, ain't he? After all, we didn't vote in 2008 and 2012. That was a figment of our imaginations because a Democrat won. And God in his Heaven would never permit, God forbid, these God-fearing conservatives of the country to lose the majority will of the Supreme Court through the Devil's work of a death of an aging conservative Justice. That cannot be under God's Sun.
That Mitch. He is what you would call ahmnishiant. And it would be an obamanation to God even to have hearings in an election year on some nominee of an unclean Muslim born in another land. Never mind that Presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, four of the principal Founders, each had confirmed appointments of Justices in presidential election years, and that never in the history of the country has any Senate refused to hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee of the President, regardless of when the nomination was submitted, even when the appointment was made after the President's defeat in an election and before the inauguration of his successor, in each of those cases resulting in confirmation.
But that was because they were dummies who believed in that Consatushun. Why should we be ruled by people who died nearly 200 years ago? This is now. We need to rule on things based on what happened now, not then. That Consatushun is so full of lawyers' tricks anyway that you can't understand it nohow.
Stick with Mitch. He knows how the wind blows. Just ask him.
It will be agreed on all hands, that the power of appointment, in ordinary cases, ought to be modified in one of three ways. It ought either to be vested in a single man, or in a SELECT assembly of a moderate number; or in a single man, with the concurrence of such an assembly. The exercise of it by the people at large will be readily admitted to be impracticable; as waiving every other consideration, it would leave them little time to do anything else. When, therefore, mention is made in the subsequent reasonings of an assembly or body of men, what is said must be understood to relate to a select body or assembly, of the description already given. The people collectively, from their number and from their dispersed situation, cannot be regulated in their movements by that systematic spirit of cabal and intrigue, which will be urged as the chief objections to reposing the power in question in a body of men.
Those who have themselves reflected upon the subject, or who have attended to the observations made in other parts of these papers, in relation to the appointment of the President, will, I presume, agree to the position, that there would always be great probability of having the place supplied by a man of abilities, at least respectable. Premising this, I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.
The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body. There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: "Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that." This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.
The truth of the principles here advanced seems to have been felt by the most intelligent of those who have found fault with the provision made, in this respect, by the convention. They contend that the President ought solely to have been authorized to make the appointments under the federal government. But it is easy to show, that every advantage to be expected from such an arrangement would, in substance, be derived from the power of NOMINATION, which is proposed to be conferred upon him; while several disadvantages which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided. In the act of nomination, his judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. There can, in this view, be no difference between nominating and appointing. The same motives which would influence a proper discharge of his duty in one case, would exist in the other. And as no man could be appointed but on his previous nomination, every man who might be appointed would be, in fact, his choice.
But might not his nomination be overruled? I grant it might, yet this could only be to make place for another nomination by himself. The person ultimately appointed must be the object of his preference, though perhaps not in the first degree. It is also not very probable that his nomination would often be overruled. The Senate could not be tempted, by the preference they might feel to another, to reject the one proposed; because they could not assure themselves, that the person they might wish would be brought forward by a second or by any subsequent nomination. They could not even be certain, that a future nomination would present a candidate in any degree more acceptable to them; and as their dissent might cast a kind of stigma upon the individual rejected, and might have the appearance of a reflection upon the judgment of the chief magistrate, it is not likely that their sanction would often be refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal.
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
To this reasoning it has been objected that the President, by the influence of the power of nomination, may secure the complaisance of the Senate to his views. This supposition of universal venality in human nature is little less an error in political reasoning, than the supposition of universal rectitude. The institution of delegated power implies, that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind, which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence; and experience justifies the theory. It has been found to exist in the most corrupt periods of the most corrupt governments. The venality of the British House of Commons has been long a topic of accusation against that body, in the country to which they belong as well as in this; and it cannot be doubted that the charge is, to a considerable extent, well founded. But it is as little to be doubted, that there is always a large proportion of the body, which consists of independent and public-spirited men, who have an influential weight in the councils of the nation. Hence it is (the present reign not excepted) that the sense of that body is often seen to control the inclinations of the monarch, both with regard to men and to measures. Though it might therefore be allowable to suppose that the Executive might occasionally influence some individuals in the Senate, yet the supposition, that he could in general purchase the integrity of the whole body, would be forced and improbable. A man disposed to view human nature as it is, without either flattering its virtues or exaggerating its vices, will see sufficient ground of confidence in the probity of the Senate, to rest satisfied, not only that it will be impracticable to the Executive to corrupt or seduce a majority of its members, but that the necessity of its co-operation, in the business of appointments, will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of that magistrate. Nor is the integrity of the Senate the only reliance. The Constitution has provided some important guards against the danger of executive influence upon the legislative body: it declares that "No senator or representative shall during the time FOR WHICH HE WAS ELECTED, be appointed to any civil office under the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during such time; and no person, holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office."
—from Federalist Paper No. 76, published by Publius (in this instance, Alexander Hamilton), April 1, 1788, regarding the President's power of appointment as contained in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution [Italicization added.]
See there? That's all too complicated. Probably just a April Fool's joke anyway. Mitch wants to simplify it for us, dispense with all of that gobbledygook and make it real simple, so's we have just what we want, whenever we want it, just like ice cream. Don't need to go all through that amendment of the Consatushun when it is no longer acceptable to the people. That would take years. Just throw it out whenever we please. Ever'body knows that nobody wants it, 'cept the Second Amendment. That's good. Keep that, 'cept we don't need no militia talk in there. Don't apply nohow 'cause there ain't no more militias. It's just common sense. You got to protect your family from all the criminals you see nightly on tv, let loose by all the liberals.
Don't hold no hearings, don't allow no vote, no "advice and consent", 'cause them liberals is liable to sneak in them lawyer tricks and get the Senate approval of the nominee in that club they got in Washin'ton. Let the people decide, as long, that is, as we're talkin' 'bout the real people, and not them liberals who try to sneak in there and get their way about ever'thing.
Besides, if the people is always so wrong about ever'thing, then they must be wrong in electing the President. So, why allow him to appoint anyone? The people ought to decide.
Senator Grassley, he done said that the Republicans done got together in caucus and decided that there ain't no way for the nominee to be confirmed nohow, based on examination of his liberal opinions, and so why give him a chance to explain to the people who he is and what some of his legal reasoning is, 'cause we done made up our minds. It's like why do we waste the taxpayers' money with juries and judges? When we know, as the people, what's what, why let some slick lawyer talk us into somethin'? Just have a little gathering down at the courthouse and decide what's what and go out and lynch the person we don't like nohow. That's the way it ought to be, and that Senator Grassley, taking his orders from Mitch, he's on his way to that system right there. That's good. That's smart. Save time and money. Streamlined.
A Quote of the Day: "My attention has been called to some person—either a young lad, or some grownup—practicing on his trumpet on Sunday mornings, and invariably during church hours. While I am happy to see a boy devote much time and study to music, especially the brass, I would suggest that he practice on Sunday afternoon, while people are trying to get some sleep, but certainly not on Sunday morning when churches are holding services." —Hammond (La.) Vindicator
It is probably a good thing that the pote of The Atlanta Journal did not get wind of that episode and try to rhyme it, replete with selected words capitalized.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.