The Charlotte News

Monday, April 10, 1950

THREE EDITORIALS

Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that Senator Joseph McCarthy said that he had told Senate investigators of the Foreign Relations subcommittee, looking into his charges of Communists in the State Department, that he was ready to provide the name of a mystery witness who would swear that Owen Lattimore was a Communist either presently or in the past. He said that he also anticipated producing other witnesses on the point.

Representative John Dingell of Michigan said that Republican leaders were backing Senator McCarthy in an effort to "get" the President.

Senator McCarthy responded that the President was "afraid" to allow a Senate investigating committee to examine secret files which the Senator claimed would prove his allegations. He also revealed that he had asked Secretary of State Acheson, in a telegram sent the previous night, whether he denied that the only missing link in the Lattimore case was proof of either membership in the Communist Party or payment to him by the party and that if such proof were forthcoming, Mr. Lattimore could accurately be labeled, as the Senator had previously done, the top Soviet agent in the country. In a speech in New Jersey on Saturday, the Senator had again attacked Mr. Lattimore, as well as again questioning the loyalty of Ambassador Philip Jessup and career diplomat John Service.

The Supreme Court let stand the Court of Appeals decision in the cases of writers John Howard Lawson and Dalton Trumbo, found in contempt of Congress for refusing to declare in fall, 1947 to HUAC whether they had ever been Communists. They were each sentenced to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. They had claimed on appeal that under the First and Fifth Amendments, they could not be compelled to provide such information on associations. But the Court of Appeals, the prior year, had found that the right to remain silent and the right to free speech and association were subject to curtailment when the national interests were at stake, that HUAC therefore had the right to make the inquiry and require an answer "to avert the anticipated evil", i.e., the spread of Communism in the society.

The vote of the Court on the decision to deny review was 6 to 2, with Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas favoring it. Justice Tom Clark, who had been Attorney General at the time of the prosecutions, took no part in the decision. The other eight of the Hollywood Ten also being prosecuted for contempt, who had not yet gone to trial, had agreed with prosecutors to waive a jury trial if the Court of Appeals decision were upheld in the Lawson and Trumbo cases.

It should be noted that there has been some indication in the past that the deaths of Justices Frank Murphy and Wiley Rutledge may have influenced the outcome of this case. Theoretically, that is possible, insofar as the case being accepted for review, as it only takes four Justices to grant a hearing. But given that six of the Justices, including new Justice Sherman Minton, replacing Justice Rutledge, disfavored granting a hearing, likely forecast a negative decision by a 5 to 4 majority, even had the two liberal Justices not died. (Justice Clark replaced Justice Murphy.) It is conceivable, however, that one of the Justices voting against grant of a hearing might have been swayed to vote for reversal. But that was still far from being a likely scenario in such a high profile case. If one of the five Justices who would have been in the majority prior to the deaths felt strongly enough on the issue, they would have surely voted at least to grant review, a decision which could have been subsequently changed. Yet, we recall Justice Felix Frankfurter's frank explanation regarding the process of denying review and its not necessarily reflecting adversely on the merits of the case, only signifying that fewer than four Justices agreed on granting review. On a case of such importance, especially in the atmosphere of intimidation and coercion created by HUAC, one would think, however, that there was less likely to be an issue apart from the merits which motivated the vote against a hearing. But in the end, whether the outcome would have been different, had Justices Murphy and Rutledge not died the prior summer, is left to the realm of complete speculation. Inevitably, with a change of even one Justice on the Court, the dynamic of the Court often changes with it, as no two individuals are precisely identical in their personalities, their ability to sway other Justices, or their jurisprudence.

Senator Harley Kilgore of West Virginia proposed that Congress create a commission to regulate the soft coal industry and fix coal prices at the mines.

Democrats were planning to use the new drive for the Brannan farm plan, expansion of unemployment insurance, the killing of the middle-income housing program in Congress, and the extension of rent controls as major issues against the Republicans in the fall. The President was also expected to make a cross-country tour soon in which he would lash out at the tactics of Senator McCarthy.

The President ended his three week vacation in Key West and prepared to return to Washington. He was considering appointment of Los Angeles businessman John A. McCone, future head of the Atomic Energy Commission between 1958 and 1961 and CIA director between 1961 and 1965, to be Undersecretary of the Air Force.

In Benton Harbor, Mich., eight Naval reservists escaped injury when their PV-2 twin-engine plane crash-landed just off the Lake Michigan shoreline as they returned from a weekend flight to Bermuda by way of Norfolk. The plane had run low on fuel when they were unable to locate the airport and they ditched in the water to avoid a crash over land.

In Madrid, the only child of Generalissimo Francisco Franco, Carmen Franco, was wed, becoming the Marquesa de Villaverde.

In Indianapolis, a man told police of being hit in the stomach by a hoodlum, but that he was not hurt. The hoodlum's fist, however, had not fared so well as the man was wearing a plaster cast for a recent back injury.

Perhaps the hoodlum, too, was related to Sr. Franco.

On the editorial page, "About That Minority Report" tells of some having observed that while Senator Frank Graham now said that he opposed the FEPC because of its Federal sanctions for noncompliance, while supporting the general notion of nondiscrimination in employment, there was no apparent dissent by him on the FEPC when it had been endorsed in 1947 by the report of the President's Civil Rights Committee, of which he was a member.

The piece quotes, however, from the minority report, which he endorsed, regarding segregation generally, that it should be eliminated from society but not by Federal sanctions of denying Federal funding to health, education, research and other benefits to force the matter on the states until they amended their laws and constitutional provisions which made segregation lawful. The editorial finds this general attitude consistent with Senator Graham's stand on the FEPC and so does not fault him for not putting forth a separate minority view on that particular issue.

"An Economy Yardstick" tells of economy being ballyhooed in Congress while, in fact, each member had their own special projects to take care of their home constituencies, lending to additional spending. A piece from the Wall Street Journal on the page explained how this process worked with respect to the harbors and rivers measure, which once totaled in the millions, now had been expanded to a proposed 1.1 billion dollars, full of pet projects.

The piece finds that unless the bill were trimmed, the Congress might as well stop complaining about a spendthrift Administration.

"End of the Trail" tells of the Greenville Piedmont in South Carolina hoping that the state's biennial "political circus" which brought candidates together in a forum in which the public could see them and hear them debate one another, to be useless as few people showed up for the event and the number of candidates limited any meaningful debate. In another time prior to radio and now television, such a forum had its place. But it had become an anachronism. Many believed gubernatorial candidate James Byrnes would be the forceful personality who could break free from this holdover tradition from another time.

A piece from the Twin City Sentinel of Winston Salem, titled "Asheville and Charlotte Get Ideas", tells of Buncombe County having organized a Committee of 100, similar to that in Winston-Salem, to study and make recommendations on needed civic improvements, as well as to provide central organization to the various solicitation drives in the community. Charlotte, spurred on by The News, was also planning to form such a committee. It finds it good that the Twin City had been able to inspire other cities to follow its lead in this regard.

It also notes that a women's auxiliary had been formed in association with the Buncombe County Committee of 100 and that a League of Women Voters had been formed in Winston-Salem recently.

It adds that there was still much, however, to be done toward improvement of life in the city.

You probably ought to start by eliminating the DDT trucks in the summer to kill the gnats and bugs, an attractive nuisance to the children who wish to play in the dense fog. There must be a better way. Also, don't build that damned Kurfees Curve on I-40, just to protect a few businesses with loud voices along Hawthorne Road. You will regret it in future years when it comes time to straighten out the circumvention because of the great number of accidents it will cause when cars go flying off it into the service station below.

Trust us. We have seen the future, and some of it is not pretty. You are making many mistakes in your thinking and planning—daily.

Carl Thompson of the Wall Street Journal, as indicated above, discusses the vast increase in the harbors and rivers bill, brought about by pork barrel politics, especially prevalent in an election year. He provides details of various such projects and the justification for some of them, while others appeared wasteful of public resources in the name of flood control and other such ostensibly beneficial functions.

Drew Pearson tells of Senator Lyndon Johnson telling friends that the President would sign the natural gas deregulation bill because failing to do so would anger too many powerful Senators. Mr. Pearson interprets it as a threat to side with Republicans in opposition to Fair Deal programs. Many in Congress, he posits, now felt that they had the President where they wanted him, over a barrel, starting with the farm bill limiting acreage on potatoes while increasing it on cotton and peanuts, to the advantage of Southern farmers. Republicans, meanwhile, were licking their chops over the chance of increasing their membership in the midterm elections in consequence of the Democratic dissension.

He explains in some detail what transpired regarding the farm bill. An increase in allowable price-support wheat acreage would be next, the reason for the President's advisers having recommended veto of the bill. The President was prepared to do so until some of the powerful members of Congress, organized by Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, placed pressure on him to sign it. Senator Russell had enlisted the help of other Southern Senators who were generally progressive on Fair Deal legislation, Lister Hill, John Sparkman, Frank Graham, and Olin Johnston, to do his bidding with the President. Vice-President Barkley also told the President that if he vetoed the farm bill, he would effectively veto the Fair Deal and give Dixiecrats and Republicans what they wanted. Others advised that it might also adversely impact Marshall Plan funding.

This complex was why Senator Johnson was so confident that the President would sign the natural gas bill.

The Republicans were confident because they could not be used as the scapegoat for do-nothingness again, and were already planning to feature mountains of potatoes and symbols of other costly programs in their campaign literature.

Stewart Alsop discusses the potential 1952 GOP candidacy of General Eisenhower, having been convinced, according to those who had talked to him recently, to allow his name to be placed in nomination, that he would not resist it as he had in 1948, as long as he did not have to campaign actively for the nomination.

The primary obstacle to the nomination would be Senator Taft, who had a long head-start toward the nomination, assuming he would win re-election to the Senate in November. To counter this momentum, the strategists for the Eisenhower candidacy would announce his Republican affiliation, never made clear previously, sometime prior to the November midterm elections. They would then set up a well-heeled organization to advance the candidacy. Finding money would not be an issue, as one Southern oil man had already said he would contribute a quarter million dollars to an Eisenhower campaign. The General, himself, would not directly participate in the organization until after his nomination.

All of it, allows Mr. Alsop, might be a pipe dream, wholly dependent on the Taft candidacy, as he was running strong in the South and Midwest, but if it did materialize, the GOP would benefit from the stature and integrity of the General, "good for the creaking two-party system, and good for the country."

Marquis Childs devotes his piece to a quoted special service held by Bishop Angus Dunn in Washington Cathedral on Ash Wednesday, in which he sought to provide solace to parishioners in a time of uncertainty and stress, given the increasing cold war tensions and domestic tensions regarding security at the price of branding one another disloyal.

A central point was his ascription to God of the caveat: "Though you should by your cleverness gain some temporary security in the world, what will it profit you if you lose your souls? You are made to walk in the light of open dealing and mutual trust and good personal relationships. Beware lest in your anxious search for security you move into a life of spreading secrecy and distrust and darkness."

The words still apply with force today, even more so in a world whose security is far less threatened than the world of 1950. Is it not the case that many people simply cannot live without the convenient mental crutch, as a drug, of being threatened by a hostile environment to motivate them to do much of anything because they respond primarily to materialism as inducement to work? Is it not the case that many slick pols, who make their careers by warning of the need for heightened security, regardless of the tendency it breeds toward a police state, study this very complex, especially prevalent in the less educated looking for a surrogate security blanket lost when mommy's nipple was plucked away, and exploit it for the sake of their own political aggrandizement?—such as the demagogue now occupying the White House in 2017.

Incidentally, United Airlines is in breach of contract by ordering their lackey cops forcibly to remove anyone from an airplane, absent a genuine security issue or pre-existing warrant for arrest, after that person has been sold a seat, offers of compensation to give up that seat notwithstanding. Fine print in that contract, i.e., the ticket, has nothing to do with it, cannot trump contract principles. You cannot form a contract which says, as part of it, that it can be canceled at anytime without prior notice, as a hedge against lawsuits for breach. That is contrary to all contract law principles and is contrary to public policy. It says, in effect, that there is a binding contract for the passenger, but not one for the airline, defeating the mutuality of consideration necessary to form a contract. The passenger who has been charged for the ticket and simply misses the flight cannot get a refund in most instances. The unilateral contract, not subject to negotiation, coerces the passenger to its terms because of a monopoly on air travel by a handful of airlines and, moreover, the consideration necessary for any contract is defeated when the airline may cancel at its whim while the passenger is stuck in the ticket.

Once any contract is formed, in this scenario by the passenger's purchase of the ticket, there is a duty of the airline to perform absent impracticability affecting all passengers equally, e.g., adverse weather conditions, mechanical difficulty with the airplane, etc., or impossibility, such as when the airplane's wings become unglued.

So, if the airline can do to the passenger what they did to the doctor removed from the flight for no fault of his own, then when we decide mercurially after boarding the plane that we don't wish to go, we must be able to deboard, en masse, and go to the counter and demand our refunds. So let's start by doing that routinely until these little bastards learn their lesson. Call and make your reservations today and then demand the refund on lack of mutuality of consideration, as the airline is not obligated to fly you and so you are not obligated either to fly. Take the bastards to small claims court.

We recommend therefore also to the gentleman who was removed from a United flight in Chicago to make way for an employee to have a seat, that he sue the hell out of this despicably Fascist outfit and sue the hell out of the Airport police for use of excessive force in making an illegal detention or arrest, without probable cause that any crime had been committed or was about to be committed. There was no trespass; the man had a right to be on the plane, as he had a contract with a public conveyance, and to be transported to his destination, per his contract with the airline. Any F.A.A. regulation appearing ostensibly to the contrary is undoubtedly unconstitutional if so interpreted, as the states, pursuant to the Constitution, may not impair contracts, impliedly suggesting that the Federal Government may not compel them to do so.

Or, there was no contract, nullified ab initio by the failure of mutual duties, and, per the above, you, as a passenger, regardless of reason or lack thereof, ("Changed my mind, Boss"), are not obligated to fly, even after boarding. And, if they should refuse a demand to deboard, then, upon landing, go, en masse, to the local magistrate and swear out citizens' arrest warrants against the crew of the airplane for false imprisonment, and then sue for same.

We are not sheep. We shall not stand for such treatment of our citizens or of guests in this country by a bunch of Fascist bastards who haven't sense enough to get out of a shower of rain. The only way to stop such reprehensible conduct is to sue them, hitting them where it makes the most impact, in their pocketbooks. They are ignorant scum taking orders from scum. Mere collective condemnation rolls off their backs like rainwater. They only laugh at that and go home with their fat paychecks and pensions. Yes, cops, these days, in large cities, get paid absurdly well through the active representation by their unions through the years. Hit them and the Fascist airlines who, obviously, have a bribing relationship with these pseudo-cops, glorified security guards, in their pocketbooks, expose them for what they are, and their laughter, their derisively simpering smirks, will cease. Things will improve. Tolerate it and it will only get worse.

We even suggest to the passengers who witnessed this particular event in Chicago that they also sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress for having to see such outrageous conduct. There is such a cause of action recognized in most jurisdictions.

Sue them and let us find out who is right and who is wrong in this disgraceful episode, disgraceful to the entire country and all of its airline personnel and airport police. A commercial airport is not a combat zone; nor is a commercial airline, you morons.

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.