The Charlotte News

Wednesday, October 15, 1952

FOUR EDITORIALS

Site Ed. Note: The front page reports, via George A. McArthur, that U.S. infantrymen had fought over the top of "Triangle Hill" on the central front in Korea this date and fought inch by inch down the northern slope. Two miles to the east, more than 1,000 enemy troops counter-attacked the South Korean Second Division on "Sniper Ridge". Many of the Chinese found on "Pinpoint Hill", near "Sniper Ridge", had committed suicide. A hastily erected cable hoist was carrying food and ammunition to the top of "Triangle Hill", where other Seventh Division soldiers dug in against an expected Chinese counter-attack. The brunt of the fighting had shifted from "White Horse Mountain" on the western front to the central front. An allied officer at the front said that American casualties were much lighter than the previous day. On White Horse, South Korean engineers tunneled under the last three Chinese positions and planted stacks of land mines, then withdrew. The mines had exploded with a roar and the whole mountain shuddered.

Indicative of the increased action during the previous ten days, a map is included of the battle front for the first time since December 19, 1951.

At the U.N. in New York, the Steering Committee of the General Assembly was set to consider the agenda for the seventh annual meeting. Secretary of State Acheson was expected this date to start debate on the demand that the Assembly appeal to the Communists for an armistice in Korea on U.N. terms, but a spokesman for the U.S. delegation said that the Secretary had decided first to "get the feel of the Assembly" before delivering the speech. The delay resulted in cancellation of both Assembly sessions scheduled for this date. Another controversial issue before the Assembly would be the airing of Tunisian and Moroccan demands that France grant more self-rule to the people of those two North African protectorates. France contended that the question was purely internal and that discussion in the U.N. might hinder ongoing negotiations. The U.S. had supported the French the previous year in the matter but had stated it would reverse its stand at the current session and agree to place the matter on the agenda for debate.

At the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, the Army let it be known this date that it was getting ready to fire the first "live ammunition" atomic shell from its 280-mm "all-purpose" gun. At a public showing of the gun, Secretary of the Army Frank Pace stated that the gun had not been fired and that the press would be advised when it was ready. He said that while actual atomic ammunition had not been fired from the gun, a projectile capable of taking a nuclear fission charge had been used. He said that the Army believed strongly in the concept and doctrine underlying the application of atomic energy to the battlefield and so had exerted strong efforts to ensure that a proper share of the national stockpile of fissionable materials was fabricated and earmarked for Army use. The gun was capable of firing at targets 20 miles distant with pinpoint precision, claimed to be four times more accurate at long range than any mobile artillery pieces developed prior to World War II. Two tractor cabs, one at each end of the 40-foot long gun, could carry it along a highway at a speed of about 35 mph and transport it also off road.

In Fort Worth, Tex., General Eisenhower promised this date a Republican administration which would use "the full power of the Government" to prevent another depression. He said that the Democrats were trying to frighten the people with scare talk regarding another depression and about cutting out personnel from Government jobs. He said the Truman Administration's record had been "a sorry one" and that he would have the "kind of government American citizens should have—and can have", prompting cheers from the crowd, estimated by police at between 7,000 and 10,000. Jack Porter, the Texas oil man who led the Texas Eisenhower campaign, predicted that the General would receive at least 54 percent of the Texas popular vote, and perhaps as much as 58 percent. (He would win the state by 53 to 47 percent.) The General would next head to Tennessee.

In Spokane, Wash., Governor Stevenson said this date that General Eisenhower knew that there was "no trick that can end the Korean War", that his implied promise to bring the men home from Korea soon in the wake of training South Korean soldiers to take their places was merely playing politics with war and peace, something in which he would not engage. He said that Americans were fighting in Korea so that they would not have to fight in Alaska or Spokane or Omaha and would come home as soon as national safety permitted and deplored the suggestion that they could come home any sooner. He said that if elected, he would run a clean and honest government, having cleaned up "a lot of evil Republican practices in Illinois and cracked down quickly and ruthlessly on misconduct" wherever he had found it. He said that he would also run an economical government as he had with balanced-budget government in Illinois, without much help from a Republican Legislature. He had deleted passages from his prepared address in Salt Lake City, which had criticized General Eisenhower for his assertion that American prosperity was built on war orders to industry, equating such claims with "the Kremlin story" and giving comfort to the Communists. He had appeared to sense his audience reaction in Salt Lake City and flow with it, something he had failed to do earlier in Casper, Wyo.

Another Gallup poll appears, indicating that in the Middle Atlantic states, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and West Virginia, which had given Governor Dewey his biggest bloc of electoral votes in 1948, the Democrats showed an increase in strength since the prior August. With undecided voters taken into account, Republicans were favored by 51 percent of respondents while 49 percent favored Democrats, a 2.5 percentage point gain for the Republicans in that section over the vote given to Governor Dewey in 1948. General Eisenhower continued to run ahead of his party in that section, but the gap was narrowing. The respondents favored General Eisenhower by 50 percent to 38 percent over Governor Stevenson, but with the undecided voters allocated on the basis of past voting patterns, the margin was reduced to 53 percent for the General to 47 percent for the Governor. All respondents had indicated their intention to vote.

In Villahermosa, Mexico, authorities reported this date that at least seven persons had drowned in flood waters which still covered much of the Tabasco state. The flood waters had reached six feet and had begun receding on Monday.

In Baltimore, a man from Hope Mills, N.C., jumped 70 feet from a scaffold early this day to elude police but firemen had caught him in a safety net. He was held on a disorderly conduct charge and a magistrate ordered a mental examination. A patrolman had spotted him 40 feet up on the scaffold drinking a bottle of wine and when the police officers closed in, he took a drink and jumped, holding onto the bottle. He told the magistrate he had nothing to live for and complained that when he hit the safety net, his bottle had bounced and disappeared.

In Richlands, Va., former Congressman and Governor George Peery, 79, died the previous night after an illness of five years duration.

The News announces its two winners of $25 bonds for writing the best letters on why people should register and vote, one prize going to an adult and one to a student. A housewife won in the adult category, stating that she voted because of her 12-year old and one-year old boys, the elder of whom would be eligible for military service in six years, and whom she did not want to see have to serve in a third world war or another Korea. An 11th grader won in the student category, describing a vote as "a piece of America" and suggesting that any citizen would point with pride to any material share in the nation, and yet many, possessing that share, let it lie unnoticed. She regarded the vote as a gift and the "priceless symbol of freedom" which had to be taken home and used.

On the editorial page, "A Better Approach to Foreign Trade" tells of the roles of liberals and conservatives being reversed when it came to protective tariffs. The wool industry, which had commanded a dollar per pound the previous year, had dropped by more than one-half. The U.S. consumed about 600 million pounds of wool annually, of which nearly two-thirds was imported from countries which produced good wool cheaper than domestic producers could. The sheep growers were begging for and receiving government subsidies, though called by other names. They had obtained a "Buy American" rider to the Defense Production Act and had persuaded the Secretary of Agriculture to ask the Tariff Commission for a ruling on whether imports were threatening the domestic price support program. They were also pressuring the Treasury Department to impose duties on imports from Argentina and Uruguay. Neither Treasury nor Agriculture had yet acted.

It indicates that imposition of new fees would violate the trade agreements and start a wave of retaliation, in the form of tariff hikes by other countries. To approach the problem, it urges, there needed to be a national change of attitude toward foreign trade, from protectionism to obtaining products as cheaply as possible, whether from a domestic or foreign producer. Some uneconomic operations would fail under that system, but the government's proper role could then be the conversion of uneconomic industries which had to adjust to the realities of competitive life.

"Let's Forget about This Idea" tells of a proposal by the North Carolina Merchants Association that a law be enacted to permit North Carolina creditors to garnish wages and salaries of their debtors, necessitating a State constitutional amendment. It asserts that the people of the state would never consent to such a change in the law and finds that they should not, as the proposal was wrong in principle. It suggests that the extension of credit was a risk assumed by the seller to attract customers, and the small merchants who hesitated to sue their friends and neighbors would be even more hesitant to garnish their wages to recover a judgment. It also indicates that business could not complain of government interference on behalf of all of the people if it sought government interference in its own behalf, and that the privacy of American paychecks had already been violated too much. It hopes that the merchants would drop the idea.

"Attn: Wives and Husbands" tells of the Chapel Hill Weekly being puzzled at a News editorial which had repeated arguments often voiced by persons who did not vote, one being that when two spouses disagreed and would cancel out each other's vote, they did not go to the polls. The Weekly had suggested that the editorial regarded the conduct as "criminal", but that was not the case, the editorial pointing out that such an attitude led to minority rule in the country, involving also a sacrifice of sovereignty of the individual voter.

The Weekly had pointed out that in Congress, legislators paired with one another, such that one who would vote yes on an item and another who would vote no arranged to be absent. It therefore had wondered what the difference was between such pairing in Congress and the similar pairing of spouses regarding voting in elections.

The piece finds that there was a lot of difference, as a citizen was responsible to his own conscience in the use of the ballot, while a Congressman represented the people and his pairing with another member provided a record of his opinions so that constituents knew where he stood. The piece stands with those who voted and stated their definite opinions, and suggests that the outcome of such an election would be what most people wanted.

"When Is a Gift Not a Gift?" indicates that Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois drew the line at receipt of gifts of greater value than $2.50 and sent them either to one of the area hospitals or gave them to his staff if worth more than that amount.

The piece finds the simple rule to be appropriate and sensible, likely satisfactory to the constituents of Senator Douglas.

A piece of from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, titled "A Miss in Representation", tells of Senator McCarthy, on September 3 at Shorewood, Wisc., having quoted from what he called a Justice Department "brief", claiming that Communists had discussed plans to obtain forged passports from Communists employed in the State Department, implying that it was an official report. In fact, as clarified by Governor Stevenson, that which Senator McCarthy had quoted dealt with an incident in 1928, though the Senator had neglected to point that out. Moreover, the document in question was not a brief but rather a series of proposed findings which did not deal with the State Department, but rather with the Communist Party, as part of the Government's case against it. In addition, the findings were not supported by evidence. The quotation came from a former Communist who claimed that he met with a Russian agent in 1928 and discussed how to get Communists in the State Department and how to forge passports, but there was never any evidence to show that the plans were implemented. None of those facts, however, were mentioned by Senator McCarthy.

The piece concludes that, presumably, even Senator McCarthy would not accuse the Coolidge Administration of harboring Communists.

Drew Pearson discusses Wage Stabilization Board chairman Archibald Cox—who, of course, later would become the special prosecutor assigned to investigate and prosecute the various actors in the Watergate scandal, fired, ultimately by Acting Attorney General Robert Bork, acting on orders of President Nixon on October 20, 1973, in the infamous "Saturday night massacre", which helped in the end to ensure the President's eventual resignation in the wake of the House Judiciary Committee vote of articles of impeachment the following July, it having been clear that an impeachment vote in the House was a foregone conclusion, with conviction in the Senate assured, as the President, in the final days, had only a handful of votes left in his corner.

Mr. Cox was presently upset with John L. Lewis for his statement that the coal miners would strike unless the WSB approved by this date the wage increase of 24 cents per hour, already accepted by the coal operators. Mr. Lewis had angered Mr. Cox even more by failing to attend a WSB meeting to discuss the pay increase. Mr. Lewis had wanted the contract to go into effect immediately, despite the fact that the law provided that the WSB first had to approve it. When Joseph Moody, one of the two spokesmen for the mine operators, informed Mr. Lewis that it would be illegal, he shrugged his shoulders and then later refused to attend the WSB meeting. Presidential assistant John Steelman persuaded Mr. Lewis to send his legal counsel to the meeting, but the counsel refused to discuss the wage agreement and avoided questions as to whether Mr. Lewis would carry out his threat of strike. Mr. Cox expressed his resistance to ultimatums and said that it was a violation of the Defense Act to make a conclusive agreement without first obtaining WSB approval. He indicated further that 13 cents of the proposed 24-cent wage boost was allowable under WSB regulations, but that evidence would have to be marshaled to justify approval of the remaining 11 cents.

Harry Moses, the other spokesman for the mine operators, made the strongest defense of the proposed 24-cent wage boost, on the ground that the miners had not received a raise in 20 months and did not enjoy the fringe benefits of workers in other industries. Mr. Moody, spokesman for the Southern operators, argued, however, that the full wage increase would "murder" his people. He said that he was operating on instructions from his board of directors to support the increase, but personally opposed it.

Mr. Pearson indicates that the column had been in error in indicating that Norman Chandler, publisher of the Los Angeles Times, had been a contributor to either of the two funds of Senator Nixon. He had contributed to the Senator only indirectly through the United Republican fund. Mr. Chandler held about two percent interest in a trust which owned stock in the Title Insurance & Trust Co., which underwrote the California oil leases in the tidelands area, but did not own a controlling interest, as the column had previously reported.

He indicates that the Democrats were worried regarding reports that women were dazzled by General Eisenhower's military glory, and so Governor Stevenson might direct one of his major speeches toward women.

Television experts who had coached Senator Nixon in his September 23 speech regarding his expense fund were NBC producer Ted Rogers and director John Clear, two of the best in the business. They had rehearsed the Senator for almost a full day, with no one admitted except the technicians.

Col. Robert McCormick's new American Party had laid an egg in Washington, as organizer Robert Varner held two rallies to launch the new party and only 50 people showed up for the first rally and 20 for the second. Mr. Varner had been so disgusted by the sparse attendance that he canceled plans for a convention and had his telephone disconnected.

Marquis Childs tells of the presidential campaign going on too long while the short attention span of the American public wore thin. The physical strain of campaigns for the candidates had become more intensified by the advent of television. Crowds had been reported small for General Eisenhower in Salt Lake City and for Governor Stevenson in New Orleans the previous week. Only about 10 to 11 percent of the potential television audience tuned in to listen to the speeches of the two candidates.

Theoretically, the longer campaign was beneficial to the Governor because he was less well known to the public. But it was a dubious theory because of the short span of political attention of the public.

He indicates that changes were in order, shortening the campaign to about five weeks from October 1, with the conventions held in the first and second weeks of September.

In addition to the strenuous campaign, the victorious candidate would then be besieged by potential office and favor seekers during the interim until inauguration day on January 20.

This complaint of a lengthy campaign occurred in a year in which neither of the two principal candidates had campaigned extensively prior to the two conventions, with the General having only begun his campaign in early June and the Governor having been drafted at the convention, itself, and having engaged therefore in no campaigning for the nomination. Obviously, the tendency has been to lengthen the campaigns to about a year and a half, including the pre-primary periods for a non-incumbent party followed by the extensive primaries and caucuses lasting over a period of four months. Yet, they were complaining about a two-month long general election campaign in 1952, with a very short primary campaign and virtually no pre-primary campaign.

Joseph Alsop, with the Eisenhower campaign, tells of a working theory lying behind the campaign, as the General had said and done many things which were out of character during the previous several weeks. Even Col. Robert McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune, previously an enemy of the General, had welcomed "the new Eisenhower".

But the Eisenhower staff argued that another Republican defeat would give Senator Taft and his partisans full control of the party machinery and men such as Senators Joseph McCarthy and William Jenner would surge into leadership. Some of those advisers to the General whispered of a "Fascist Party" resulting. Thus they were inclined, for the sake of expediency, to make compromises.

Governor Stevenson, though much admired, remained unknown to most of the voters, while the General was regarded warmly as being full of life, friendly and outgoing. Voters responded to this perception, and the General's personality was being relied upon to appeal to the independent voters. He had sought to heal the division in the party through his speeches and appearances with Senators McCarthy and Jenner. Now, with the unification complete, the General would begin to talk like himself. The aim after the election would be to reconstruct the party, as most would follow the General's lead if he were elected President.

Such modernization held great promise, but ignored several grave problems, such as the General's commitments to Senator Taft and his prospective power in the new Congress, which the General would help to elect. Mr. Alsop thinks that a Taft-Eisenhower struggle might result. For the moment, however, such danger was less important than the present.

The General, as a political innocent, did not fully grasp the significance of some of the concessions he had made, such as his promise to Senator Taft regarding substantial cuts to the defense budget, and some of his staff were visibly worried, both by those concessions and by the General's lack of awareness of their potential meaning. Yet, what mattered was that the General was the same person, with ideas unchanged and objectives unaltered.

A letter writer from Forest City, a barber, expresses shock at the newspaper's endorsement of General Eisenhower in the fall election. He says that "big-timers" were always for the wrong man and wonders whether it was the editor or the newspaper, itself, which was backing the General.

A letter writer from San Jose, California, indicates that he had just read of the newspaper's endorsement of the General and finds it good that Americanism was "oozing out of strong people who have the courage to change in the face of much opposition" which he assumes the newspaper faced in Charlotte. He imparts that one of their citizens, a chef, worked in a café a half a block from his building and had come from Charlotte, was delighted at the stand of the newspaper.

We again remind that the newspaper had endorsed the Republican presidential candidate for as far back as the eye could see, even unto antediluvian times. So, we are not so sure about why there was so much surprise and how bold was the stand.

A letter writer urges sending the newspaper and its endorsement of General Eisenhower to "Old Ike", as he did not want it.

Well, you have to read something, and all you have left is that old Observer, which is even worse.

A letter writer from Los Angeles tells of other "patriotic papers" like The News, the El Paso Times, Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, Richmond News-Leader and Columbus Ledger, all having placed "country above party" in endorsing the General.

A letter writer finds the editorial endorsement of the General to have been sound in every respect.

A letter writer indicates that the newspaper had made an error on October 2 regarding the rock wall and iron fence around the old Sugar Creek Cemetery, that it had been placed by the DAR. She also indicates other corrections.

A letter writer indicates that as it was traditional to give special trains a name, such as the "Orange Blossom Special", "The Southerner", and "El Capitan", the whistle-stop train which had borne the President across the country recently for 15 days ought be dubbed the "Manure Spreader Special". He indicates that his farmer friends would understand as they were paying part of its expense.

Well, unless they contributed to the DNC, they were not paying a penny, as the taxpayers did not pay for the train. Get your facts straight before someone dubs you an "Orange Blossom Special".

A letter writer comments on the recent editorial, "Why Penalize the Safe Driver?" finding it to be of great interest to North Carolinians who found costs of living rising. She indicates that her insurance had increased by more than five dollars per year the previous year, and two dollars the year before that. She had not needed to make a claim on her insurance for many years and when she saw hot rodders driving along streets and highways with reckless abandon, she wondered why she was supposed to help pay for their insurance.

A letter writer from Asheville asks which crime the reader considered more heinous in the sight of God, the attack by Senators McCarthy and Jenner on General Marshall or the "beastly attack" on General Eisenhower by the President. She says that she had lived in the shadow of the White House for seven years and knew about the dirt in D.C. involving all of "Harry's pals". She finds that he had turned his back on two Southern governors during the inauguration parade in 1949. She also says that "we Republicans" had put on a box supper at one dollar per box while the Democrats had charged $100 per plate for a "gorgeous feed". "The way the Democrats like the Negro vote you would have thought some of them would have been at the head table. But no, they were huddled out in a hall."

That jazz about the President not acknowledging Governor Strom Thurmond in 1949 had long ago been debunked, not intended as any snub. Read the newspaper for a change, rather than getting your information from Mars Central.

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.