The Charlotte News

Monday, May 18, 1953


Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that U.S. Sabre jets had destroyed 12 enemy MIG-15s this date, three of which were attributed to Capt. Joe McConnell, making him the leading jet ace with 16 MIG kills. One additional enemy jet was probably destroyed. It was the largest bag since September, 1951, when three enemy jets had been destroyed and four damaged. The record for the war had been established the prior July 4, with 13 destroyed, one probably destroyed and seven damaged. Capt. McConnell had been described as "a little wild" by fellow pilots, until recently he had parachuted into the Yellow Sea and was rescued by helicopter, with his colleagues then indicating that he was settled down as a result. It was the sixth straight day of air battles, which had resulted in 36 MIGs destroyed, two probably destroyed and 17 others damaged. During the month, allied planes had destroyed 39 MIGs, five fewer than the record established in April, 1952. Sabre pilots had sighted more than 800 MIGs during the previous six days. One pilot said he could not understand how the enemy pilots could take the punishment, that the allied pilots could not.

Capt. Manuel Fernandez, previously the leading jet ace with 14 MIG kills, had his request for an additional 25 missions declined. He would leave for home shortly, after 125 missions, 25 more than the 100 required for rotation.

Two of this date's MIG kills had been attributed to Lt. Col. Louis A. Green of Lexington, N.C., one of the two kills having occurred without him firing a shot, after he got on the jet's tail and was ready to fire when the pilot bailed out, an action which Col. Green did not understand as he saw nothing wrong with the jet. In the other kill, he had crippled the plane with his machine gun, causing it to go into a spin, at which point the pilot bailed out.

U.S. airmen speculated that a Communist jet shot down this date by a Delaware pilot had been flown by a "big shot" Communist flier because the fighter had a dragon painted across its fuselage, and every time one of the Sabres had dogged it, other enemy jets came to its assistance. The allied pilots speculated that a top enemy airman had sought to find out why his fellow pilots had taken such a heavy beating during the previous six days.

The ground war dwindled along the front, with South Korean infantrymen having fought day-long clashes for a string of outposts on a bend of the Pukhan River in east-central Korea on Sunday. By nightfall, the South Korean troops had pulled out under orders because of intense enemy artillery fire. The Eighth Army reported 122 Chinese troops killed or wounded north of Chorwon on the central front in the sharpest predawn action this date. The enemy had withdrawn after a 1.5-hour skirmish at an outpost held by the South Koreans. After that action, only minor patrol clashes were reported.

William Oatis, who had been released the previous day from his two years of imprisonment in Czechoslovakia for alleged spying on behalf of the U.S. against the Communist regime, returned to the U.S. this date, arriving in New York and greeted by his wife, whose letter to the President of Czechoslovakia, Antonin Zapotocky, had been the primary reason for his release early from the ten-year sentence. Prior to leaving Frankfurt, West Germany, the previous night, Mr. Oatis had said that the Czechs had given him "psychological" treatment before his trial, in which he had confessed guilt of the charge. He said he was not terrorized or mishandled and that the Czechs did not try to indoctrinate him with Communism. He indicated, however, that they had been "very efficient in their methods in preparation" for his trial and that it would be difficult to describe what had happened in a way which could be understood by anyone not familiar with those proceedings, that it was more psychological than anything else, and that if it sounded like he was reciting something during the course of the trial, that was because he had been. He said that as a reporter, he had always tried to present all sides of an issue, but that in Prague, he had found that there were different ideas about what constituted objectivity in news reporting, and that especially people in charge of the Government did not see things as in the U.S. or other countries where freedom of the press existed. He had found that an American reporter trying his best to do a job as fairly as he could was not understood. He said that because he had been cut off from the world during his imprisonment, he did not even know that Joseph Stalin had died the prior March or that Dwight Eisenhower had been elected President the prior November. When somebody asked him about Rocky Marciano, the heavyweight boxing champion of the world since the previous September, he asked who he was. He said that during his imprisonment, he had written the tunes for several hundred songs, writing most of them on cake cartons and toilet paper, but that his jailers would not allow him to bring out the songs on cartons, though he had been able to keep quite a lot of the others.

A Czechoslovakian airliner, in which a group of anti-Communists had fled from their homeland the previous March, would be returned to Czechoslovakia this date, according to a U.S. High Commission spokesman in Frankfurt. It was a reciprocal move in response to the pardoning and release of Mr. Oatis. The plane had been seized by its chief pilot and three passengers on March 23 while on a flight inside Czechoslovakia, as they overpowered three other crew members and flew across the German border, landing at the U.S. airbase in Frankfurt. The four who had plotted the escape and two other passengers were granted political asylum in West Germany and the other 20 passengers and three crewmen were returned to Czechoslovakia at their request.

General Matthew Ridgway, supreme commander of NATO and soon to become Army chief of staff, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee this date that even if NATO forces were built up to planned strength during the year, they would still be too weak to prevent serious reverses in the event of a Communist attack. He testified in support of the Administration's request for 5.8 billion dollars of continued foreign aid in the coming fiscal year. He said that U.S. aid was essential to the security of the U.S. as well as to all the NATO nations. He said that the available land, air and naval forces of the country were still quite inadequate, were not in existence or in sight for inter-regional use, that air power remained the weakest link in the country's defense.

Elton C. Fay of the Associated Press indicates that the new examination of defense strategy by Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson would rely probably on the new Joint Chiefs' primary focus on protection of American cities and industries from aerial surprise attack. Heavier reliance would be placed on interceptor planes, anti-aircraft guided missiles and conventional anti-aircraft artillery. The Secretary said that the size and composition of the Air Force in the future would depend on the results of a strategic study to be conducted by the Joint Chiefs and by National Security Council decisions based on it. He said that an "interim goal" would be 120 air wings by sometime in 1955, an increase from the current 103 wings, though not all being at full readiness. Air Force officials had estimated that the number of planes presently on order would nearly supply the difference to make up the 120 wings, but no more, and that there was no certainty that more were contemplated, with Mr. Wilson indicating that the numbers were not as important as how good some of the planes were, to become the new focus.

In London, Foreign Undersecretary Anthony Nutting told Commons this date that Britain had no intention of placing an embargo on non-strategic trade with Communist China, while maintaining compliance with the letter and spirit of a U.N. resolution which banned shipment of strategic goods to Communist countries. He said that there had been no consultations with the U.S. or other governments regarding trade in non-strategic goods, making his statements in response to a Labor member's question.

Senator Taft said this date in an interview that the excess profits tax was "vicious" and that some of its provisions probably should be continued temporarily to provide revenue needed for balancing the budget. The tax was slated to expire on July 1 unless Congress renewed it. It presently raised about two billion dollars in revenue each year, reaching a maximum of 68 percent taxation on large businesses.

In the vicinity of Marshall, Tex., a DC-3 twin-engine transport plane crashed in a wood the previous day during a storm, killing 19 persons aboard, with one survivor. The crash occurred moments after the pilot had asked the Shreveport airport control tower for routine landing instructions, indicating no difficulty at the time. The surviving passenger said that she had fallen asleep and that when she awakened, the plane was turning over repeatedly and everyone was screaming. Her next recollection was regaining consciousness in a puddle of water with a dying man beside her. Doctors said she had a good chance to live, though having suffered a serious head injury, a broken leg and shock. Two others aboard the plane had initially survived the crash, one of whom was a stewardess who later died on the way to the hospital, and the other, a young mother who died a short time after the crash. Only a short section of the fuselage remained intact after the crash near the Texas-Louisiana border, a mile south of U.S. Highway 80. The plane had been eastbound from Dallas, with its eventual destination having been Atlanta.

In Wilmington, N.C., 19 men accused of taking part in a Klan flogging in October, 1951, pleaded no defense as their trial began in Federal District Court, pursuant to their indictment on charges of kidnapping and conspiracy. The judge said that he would listen to all of the testimony before passing sentence. The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina said that he would not seek the death penalty. One alleged victim of a flogging testified regarding his alleged kidnapping at his home in Nichols, S.C., in October, 1951, indicating that he was transported to Fair Bluff, N.C., where he was flogged with thick belts attached to pick handles. Seven of the defendants had been convicted in a similar case the previous year, five of whom were currently serving prison sentences, including Early Brooks, former police chief of Fair Bluff, and Horace Strickland, former Columbus County deputy sheriff. Two other of those seven defendants, one of whom was a son of Mr. Brooks, were on probation in another Klan-related case. Five of the other accused in the current case were South Carolina farmers. The remaining seven were all from North Carolina and included another son of Mr. Brooks, four of them being Fair Bluff farmers.

In Ahoskie, N.C., the local high school graduation exercises would be held in a Baptist church on May 24 over the protests of a Catholic priest, as it had been a tradition to hold the exercises in either the Baptist or Methodist church. The priest had protested that holding the program in any church of any denomination violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment providing for separation of church and state, contending that no tax-supported public school should be identified with any particular denomination. He questioned how the people of the town would react if it had been announced that the exercises would be held in a local Catholic church. He had made the protest in the form of a letter to the Daily Roanoke-Chowan News of Ahoskie. The pastor of the Baptist church had responded that he believed it was up to the senior class of the high school to determine where they held their exercises.

On the editorial page, "How Many Negro Hospital Beds Are Needed?" indicates that the Mecklenburg Medical Society and the Chamber of Commerce had advocated construction of a new black hospital, on the basis of a health survey which had indicated that the city needed 65 more black hospital beds. An additional point needed to be made that an adequate black hospital ought also include double or triple that number of beds for several reasons, which it enumerates.

We will not elaborate further on this outdated notion because the simple remedy would have been to integrate the city's hospitals, a radical concept, however, vis-à-vis the general attitude of the population, not only in Charlotte, in North Carolina, in the South, but throughout most of the country, in 1953.

We might note, given that there was a major story the previous day and this date regarding the release of William Oatis of the Associated Press by the Czechoslovakian Government, in combination with this local piece on the hospital, that today, June 19, 2020, it was announced by the Associated Press that it was changing its style policy to usage henceforth of "Black" in reference to black persons, on the theory that "black" is a color and not a person. We shall, however, continue at this website to express the term in the lowercase for the simple reason that to render it uppercase means that "white" would also need to be capitalized for the sake of equality of application and symmetry of language, consistent with the U.S. Constitution. But to start using the term "White" could be interpreted to suggest, when rendered alone, without "Black" as a concomitant, that the writer is impliedly suggesting white supremacy, and so we shall stick to the traditional use of the neutral terms "black" and "white" to refer to African-Americans and Caucasians, respectively, when, that is, the story in point requires for its sense identification of the racial identity of an individual.

We note that many black authors through time have capitalized Black, notable among them having been the late James Baldwin, one of the nation's best contemporary writers in our opinion, and that adaptation was well and good, as Mr. Baldwin had begun his writing career primarily as a novelist, and the novelist's tools permit such creative use of the language to communicate a point, that point not having been in the least offensive or inappropriate coming off the pen of Mr. Baldwin, given the troubled times in which he wrote and the subjects of his writing, being usually concerned with economic, judicial or social oppression of black citizens of the society.

We do not quibble with the Associated Press decision to change its policy, which is, of course, its right to do, but we do question the rationale behind it and find that the reasoning we have explained above appears much more sensible than that expressed by the A.P. (We note that the A.P. piece announcing this change stated that there had been a longstanding controversy regarding whether to capitalize the word "black" in reference to African-Americans. We have been quite sensitively mindful to the issue of race and racial divisions in this country for many decades and have never been aware of any such controversy in that regard—sounding more as a controversy dreamed up on some recent blog or by some contributors to Wicked-pedia, than anything actually obtaining in reality to any pervasive extent in the society. Candidly, if we should see "Black" in juxtaposition to "white" in current times and in general print media, we shall stop reading the particular story, on the assumption that the author of the story is an insensitive individual who places the rights of black Americans ahead of other Americans, just as violative of the precepts of the Constitution as the converse and just as reprehensible, leading only to reaction, not constructive discourse about race or any other topic. Such use of language will also inevitably play to the regressive hand of the Trumpies, armed, self-proclaimed militias, anti-government "Boogaloos" or their like, and generate reaction, perhaps even violence, ultimately. It is a form of reaction stimulative of further reaction. It is also more than a little condescending to black citizens to make special reference to "Blacks", approximating a reversion to the use of "Negro" when that was considered inoffensive but having become, by standards in place since the 1970s, unacceptable as condescending. In fact, the new A.P. policy strikes us as downright uninformed and anachronistic, decades behind the times, as if time has stood still since 1965 or so. It is akin to referring to "Special Children".)

In the end, such conventions of language, as with statues which people pass every day without noticing or contemplating anything racial or particularly symbolic about them, are merely ephemera, changes in which will do nothing to change attitudes in the long run, indeed might even produce backlash of a negative sort, which only serves to widen racial divides rather than heal and bridge them. Beliefs change attitudes over time, and beliefs are changed, not by enforcement, whether of language, particular categories of statuary or other enforced accouterments or artistic artifacts in society, but rather by recognition simply of certain basic principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and in most recognized religions, the central tenet of which is that all people are created equal. Once that concept has not only been spoken but also internalized and understood from early childhood onward such that it is regularly practiced, one need not worry too much about what language one uses to express certain concepts. Enforcement of particular words or absence of same to express ideas is fascist in its origins. Indeed, in these times, we find that those persons who are the most subject to charges of racism in fact, by their beliefs, attitudes and practices, are the very ones who are most sensitive, most defensive and most concerned about such trivial pursuits as the type of language used and statuary presented. They cannot amend their racist conduct or past associations and practices and so seek to demonstrate their "coolness", their expiation of past sin, by adopting certain conventions of prescribed language and conduct for the nonce, while it is "cool", so as to be above reproach in their daily business associations, simply to avoid being fired or losing business, not because it is right and just, an ephemeral reaction which will not last through time unless accompanied by deep understanding through education, not enforcement of certain transitory norms, which ultimately only breed rebellion to and ridicule of those same norms later. When students are in high school, certain words are positively sanctioned and others negatively sanctioned, only to have those students, when they are freed from those restraints, more often than not rebel by using the prohibited words and cringing at the use of the required recitations, to the point, sometimes, of deliberate abuse of the language as a form of rebellion to their formal, albeit limited and often inchoately misunderstood, education. It is the way of things. America was founded in rebellion and Revolution. People the world over and through time, unless held in check by the most rigidly enforced proscriptions through threatened retribution for the most minor trangressions from the norm, tend to rebel against established convention after the once novel becomes commonplace and overly accepted to the point of enforcement as a norm.

That said, we again raise our middle finger to the unknown idiots, semi-retarded, historically speaking, as they appear to be, who tore down a statue of George Washington in Portland, Oregon, last night, just as we raised the one-finger salute earlier to two white young men who were photographed taking down a statue of Thomas Jefferson last week in the same city. All of those idiots ought to be prosecuted for vandalism, as that is what that act is, cheap vandalism for the sake of vanity of those wanting to take advantage of protests to engage in lawless conduct, perhaps even intending to spawn more division and hatred in the society in the process. And any official governmental entity which would tacitly or expressly approve such conduct ought be driven from office at the next election for having expressed contempt for the Founders and thus the Constitution.

As to Thomas Jefferson, one only need examine his memoirs to understand that he was a strong advocate from the time of the Revolution onward, through the remainder of his life, of the abolition of slavery, but also understood that, given the times, it had to be done in a way which would compensate slaveowners for their loss, however repugnant that concept might at first appear to those unthinking persons who attempt to engraft modernity and its mores onto times two and three or more centuries earlier, completely out of context, focusing on one person at a time as if that person existed and grew in an autocratic vacuum while everyone else in the society was "cool" and exemplars of modern attitudes. While some of Mr. Jefferson's suggested solutions to end slavery, which included deportation of slaves, after they had reached majority as freedmen while still living with their mothers, to Santo Domingo, which was willing to accept them and pay for their transportation, would smack of lack of modern understanding of the problem, he was, as everyone, a product of his age and operated on by the forces of his time, as was George Washington, and no one but idiots who failed to understand history in school except as a timeline full of particular events and persons to memorize by rote for a test rather than as a continuum of human progress to learn for the sake of individual progress and understanding of trends and changes of societies and cultures, try to transpose historical figures into present times, with full understanding of present problems or else condemned to perdition as "racist" or "sexist" or some other "-ist". The principles for which these two men and the other Founders fought and gave up very substantial lives of relative luxury, indeed risked their necks to the gallows for treason to the Crown, to pursue and ensure to the future of American society, are the important things. It is those principles for which they are remembered and honored historically through time in this country, through statues, monuments, names and as the Founders and Forefathers of the country. To condemn them is to condemn our democratic form of government under the Constitution.

Anyone engaged in tearing down or taking down, even under local authority, statues of those two men, Washington and Jefferson, are undermining the very fabric of this nation and its principles for subsequent generations to understand. That both were slaveowners is quite beside the point. One can look deeply into history at any historical figure of any race or color or creed and find clay feet of one sort or another which would subject that person to dishonor and obloquy, especially when their ascribed actions or statements are viewed through a narrow, myopic lens, microscopically examined as if a bacterium on a slide in biology class, apart from the temporal context in which those acts or statements arose. No one is perfect, and most people are quite imperfect. That sort of examination serves nothing but to communicate the utter stupidity and self-righteous hypocrisy of those stressing such clay feet. Read Jefferson's memoirs for further understanding.

We suppose next, since President Kennedy once said that no group of men had ever dined in the White House with more collective wisdom than when Thomas Jefferson dined alone, there will come an effort to try to rename any and all edifices named for President Kennedy, and otherwise to besmirch his memory as having aligned himself with a "racist" in giving such a plaudit to Mr. Jefferson.

Such idiots need to take history again and stop rejecting both history and science, which some of these nuts in the streets, of both and all sides of the political spectrum, appear to do, especially evident over the past three months during the coronavirus pandemic. Indeed, the present protests and rioting appear to be in large part resultant from the lockdown necessarily produced by the coronavirus pandemic, with some young people having an overriding desire to get a release from home lockdown by taking to the streets and acting like utter fools, on the excuse of celebrating in the process the lives of some very questionable individuals, with criminal backgrounds of a serious nature, who met tragic ends at the hands of very questionable conduct by poorly trained, selected and assigned police, too eager to shoot first and ask questions only later in the name of officer safety rather than maintaining uppermost the concept of public service and protection in policing the streets of the land. All of a piece, whether those idiots demonstrating against the coronavirus lockdown, especially those idiots who came to the rallies armed, or those idiots presently protesting in the streets violently against unnecessarily violent police conduct, all in the wrong. Guns and their proliferation and adoration in the society, to the point of becoming a virtual religion for some with the gun substituted for a deity, over the course of several decades have a lot to do with these consequences.

The systemic problem causing police misconduct is not so much racism as it is that trained tendency in too many police departments across the land to shoot first and shoot fatally, on a hair-trigger, at the first sign of resistance or a willingness of the detained person to escape the scene of a non-serious crime or traffic stop, after the officer has identified the person detained and after, in certain circumstances, they have been determined to be unarmed and not the subject of wants or warrants for violent crimes.

Go home, chill out, and get some rest. Then read some good, solid books on both science and history, re-educate yourselves, and stop watching so much television. Just as with the Wall Street protests of nine years ago, nothing much is going to change for the better as a result of such street protests today, and a year or two from now, no one will even much recall what the current protests were about or the names of the officers or the dead detainees, just as, already, few people recall the death in North Charleston, S.C., of Walter Scott, wanted for nothing and stopped in broad daylight for a simple taillight violation, in 2015, for which the officer who killed him by shooting him in the back as he fled on foot for unknown reasons, today is spending a 20-year prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to Federal charges of violation of Constitutional civil rights, following a hung jury on the State murder charge. Mr. Jefferson, incidentally, along with James Madison, another Virginia plantation slaveowner, were almost solely responsible for those civil rights, even if, through little or no fault of their own, it took quite a long time for most of their fellow countrymen to recognize them for all citizens. Mr. Scott, we offer, is far more worthy of recognition for a life well-lived than any of the killed detainees whom the current protests and rioting claim principally to honor, though we do not thereby propose to judge them as human beings. But to accord them greater honor than either John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., received after their tragic deaths trounces on absurd ground and dishonors the memories of the more deserving members of society who have died tragically, whether white, black, brown, yellow or any other color. Skin pigmentation is not the issue.

No one, of course, except someone resisting violently by use of deadly force, should die in police custody by use of deadly force exerted by police officers to effect a detention. But it is also very good advice not to resist police physically in any manner, if one values one's hide, during a detention or arrest, no matter how degraded, humiliated and unfairly treated one feels at the time. Let the attorney and the courtroom be the means and forum of expression of resistance, in the form only of legal and factual argument, to police overreaching or mistakes in enforcement, not providing the poorly trained officer with any excuse to whip out his or her hair-trigger final form of enforcement of The Law and Order—which he or she, or his or her training officers, done prob'ly growed up seein' on the tv 30-40 years ago and can't help, therefore, their reflexive response, it being thus ingrained. One viewing of "Dirty Harry" too many, maybe, and the desire, unfortunately, to emulate the corrupt cop with a bad attitude thus displayed as a folk hero of sorts. Pity those officers who prefer image to reality and lack full understanding that actions have consequences on all sides, that the streets are not actually a battlefield in which sides are staked across a barricade, good guys and gals versus bad guys and gals. Don't provoke him or her into their preconceived fantasy games of heroism in the face of perceived threat to life and liberty.

Charlotte did not need a new black hospital in 1953. It needed integrated hospitals which recognized equality of rights for every patient and every visitor. That is in accord with the Constitution, with which Thomas Jefferson had a great deal to do in its conception and ratification, and any idiot who tears down his statue might as well be attempting to tear down the Constitution, needs to sit in jail for a time, alongside the poorly trained and overly reactive former police officers, to consider what they have done and how to remedy their own corrupted thinking to prevent similar acts in the future. Until that is done, such vandals, in our opinion, are just lawless idiots, to be classed in the same category with the Rushing Lamebrains and the Fox News nuts of the extreme right, indeed, are probably one and the same type people at the end of the day, emotively reactive, intellectually impeded by their subjectively staked opinions reached without reason. All of a piece, all in the wrong. They only breed division and hatred, and division and hatred have a tendency to breed more such division and hatred, sometimes lasting generations. Education, late-night burning of the old midnight oil in reading of substantial old books, and not the easy tv indoctrination of modernity, is the only way to stop it and cut the tension on the rope drawn too taut.

During the 1950s, we used to have two of several dogs in our household, one named "Blackie" and another "Whitey", for their coloration, though we had nothing to do with the naming—which also included "Milwaukee", then home of the Braves, and "Bambi", the chihuahua, resemblant to a little deer, though no Boston. Based on our recollection, both Whitey and Blackie got along fine, never imparted unkind utterances to one another or even fought over bones, both equally understanding, apparently, mutual dependence on their Masters for sustenance. They presented probably a good object lesson.

To those who live and thrive too much by their iPhones or their functional equivalent, we commend to you this instructive video and ask you to ask yourselves who is supporting forms of "slavery" overseas today, not 155-200 years ago? The same question might be asked of those self-righteous crusaders against statues who insist on having new Nikes in their wardrobe. We hope, for the sake of intellectual honesty and consistency, you will proceed henceforth barefooted and without any videophones.

"We're Still Waiting To Hear Clark" indicates that during the previous year several witnesses before Congressional committees had stated that former Attorney General Tom Clark, since 1949 a Justice of the Supreme Court, had mismanaged his office, with the latest such witness having been immediately former Attorney General James McGranery, who had testified the prior Friday that the Justice Department had undertaken unusual procedures to dismiss the Kansas City mail fraud case in 1946, when Mr. McGranery was the number two man in the Department. He said that ordinarily all such major cases came across his desk but that he had not been informed of the mail fraud case until he became Attorney General in spring, 1952, when apprised of the fact by a Congressional committee.

The piece opines that Justice Clark, in refusing thus far to accept invitations to testify before Congress, had cast doubt on himself, his profession and his high office, and that it was time for him to appear and submit to questioning.

"Planned Parenthood's Progress in India" indicates that during the days of the British Empire, travelers to India would return with stories of the natives' great interest in patent medicines which might increase their reproductive capacity, as a large family increased a man's prestige in his neighborhood, but also became a chief contributor to the overpopulation of the country and resultant extreme poverty.

Now, after a limited educational campaign by health workers, 70 percent of the natives favored family planning. The average Indian family presently had four living children, with 40 percent of the children dying before age 10, but many families now said that three children constituted the ideal size. India was now pushing through, ahead of schedule, a birth-control program, including guidance clinics and child welfare centers. Higher health standards had decreased sharply the Indian death rate, with the result that from 1941 to 1951, the population had increased by 42 million and presently stood at 365 million. Officials were hopeful, however, that with birth control, the population would become stabilized within a few years at about 370 million.

India, like Japan, which also had too many people for its area, was taking the sort of practical action which would relieve the pressing problem of overpopulation, lending support to the argument that the problem of too many people for too little land would be reduced in proportion to the raising of living and educational standards in overpopulated countries.

A piece from the High Point Enterprise, titled "Journalism Challenge", indicates that after 27 years of heading the UNC journalistic training operations, Oscar Coffin planned to retire at the close of the present academic year, but would continue to teach. The training of journalists under his leadership had a distinctive characteristic, with its product having spoken eloquently of his efforts, even while well-meaning friends would have placed more emphasis on superficialities with which national accreditation might have been obtained. Mr. Coffin had been convinced to take the money provided, along with the men and materials, and make the best of what he had, though he had been entitled to better facilities. Recently, moves had been made to equip the UNC Journalism School with tools worthy of Mr. Coffin.

It indicates that filling his shoes would not be easy and it hopes that his successor would retain the flavor and spirit of teaching he had exemplified, and would fight for the same principles he had sought.

In Atlanta, Emory University, which had one of the best Journalism Schools in the country, was abandoning the field, leaving a void which UNC could help fill. It had its work cut out for it, however, with the retirement of Mr. Coffin. The University of Georgia had the Henry W. Grady School, one of the largest journalism schools in the South, one of the reasons why Emory was leaving the field. Duke had long considered establishing a journalism school and Wake Forest contemplated the possibility when it would move to Winston-Salem. If the UNC School could provide the new facilities, a successor could be found who would carry on the tradition of Mr. Coffin, and the School could succeed to Emory's service with similar depth of training, there would be no need for another journalism school in the state, as UNC would continue to provide inspired young men and women to journalism. "And most hands will agree we need better, if not more, newspapermen."

Drew Pearson indicates that one of the most amazing backtracks of the new Administration had occurred a few days earlier when it reversed a program to prevent rat droppings and weevil waste in wheat and other grains sold to American consumers. That program had begun on October 15, 1952, under the Truman Administration, and on April 6 had been widened by the FDA under the Republicans and extended to weevil waste elimination in grain. But Secretary of the newly created Health, Education and Welfare Department, Oveta Culp Hobby, had, shortly after becoming a full-fledged Cabinet member, suspended that program by an order of May 1. Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson, who had been cooperating in the grain cleanup program, also dropped it.

The reversal came after 45 carloads of wheat had been seized for having an excess of rat droppings in them, but after the program had been vigorously opposed by the big grain dealers, several of them protesting directly to the White House. Senator Andrew Schoeppel of Kansas had also opposed the program, having been pressured by a member of the Kansas City commodity exchange, after Kansas City grain dealers had threatened to refuse to handle the grain from the Southwest presently stored in farm bins, should the Government continue the program. They urged a voluntary cleanup by the grain industry. Many millers and all of the bakers of the nation had encouraged the Government cleanup, leading to establishment of the program the previous fall. Under it, more than one rat dropping per pint of grain was condemned for human consumption but classified as appropriate for animal consumption. Grain containing more than 20 surface weevils or other insects, dead or alive, per 1,000 grams of wheat was also considered unfit for human consumption but appropriate for animals. The grain industry had objected on the ground that it set up two standards for grain, and grain dealers complained that their own voluntary cleanup program was adequate. But the Food and Drug commissioner, Charles Crawford, and his assistant, proceeded with the cleanup program. When the grain lobby objected and insisted that Mr. Crawford and three assistants be fired, Secretary Hobby considered for awhile doing so, until the scandal and outcry resulting from the initial firing of Dr. Allen Astin of the Bureau of Standards prompted Administration caution regarding another such firing at the behest of economic interests. But Secretary Hobby and Secretary Benson eventually caved into the grain interests and announced that they were returning to the voluntary program of compliance.

Roy Cohn, the chief investigator for Senator McCarthy, had a lot of people laughing at him as a result of his antics recently in Europe, where he had gone ostensibly to investigate the U.S. Information Service libraries for potential Communist influence in the books contained therein. But Mr. Cohn's father, Judge Albert Cohn of New York, stood by him, telling friends in Washington the previous week that though some people did not like Roy, they were just jealous of him.

More than 100,000 spectators were so anxious to attend the coronation parade of Queen Elizabeth in London two weeks hence that they were planning to sleep on the sidewalks the night before. The BBC was planning to cooperate with the police by playing special wake-up music through loudspeakers for the sidewalk sleepers.

A piece from the New York Herald Tribune regards spring in North Carolina, tells of the many flower displays along the Blue Ridge Parkway and in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park and nearby Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests, during the months of May and June especially. It emphasizes the rhododendron, laurel and azaleas, as well as the blooming apple orchards.

James Marlow indicates that the President's radio address to the nation the next night on defense and the budget was occurring none too soon, as there was confusion about what the Administration was doing to defense by proposing large cuts, especially to the Air Force. The Administration had not done a good job of explaining its intentions thus far, presumably the reason for the address. It remained to be seen whether the proposed cuts would compromise security, with Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson having stated the previous week that the economy program aimed to provide more effective defense for less money.

Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri, former Secretary of the Air Force, had said that the President was "putting fiscal policies ahead of military strategy." He contended that the Administration was offering "more stretchout, more soothing syrup, more cars, more fat, less muscle."

Joint Chiefs chairman, General Omar Bradley, had said the prior Friday that the Administration wanted to cut defense spending, with a smaller Air Force than previously supposed was necessary, and wondered whether it was acting on the basis of secret information that Russia was less a menace than it had been a year or two earlier. The General stated that he knew of nothing in the world situation to support such cuts over the long-range. He made a point of saying he was not aiming his comments at the current economy drive.

Mr. Marlow indicates that the Administration was taking a calculated risk that Russia was not going to strike any time soon and that the absence of Russian belligerence in its rhetoric since the death of Stalin on March 5 had to be a factor in the Administration's thinking. If that assumption proved valid, the Russians had accomplished more by being nice than they had by being tough while Stalin was alive, with the tough talk, along with the attack on South Korea in mid-1950, having prompted increases in U.S. defense spending. But with the eased rhetoric, the country's defense spending was being reduced.

A letter writer indicates that in light of the recent history, "Hiss, Remington and other traitors your friendly attitude toward Lattimore is rather nauseating." He thinks that Marquis Childs had drawn "his shining sword in defense of Hiss, because Hiss was a magnificent liar." He predicts that a year hence, Mr. Lattimore would be "in jail then you and that stupid judge will have some red faces to cover."

The remaining charges against Mr. Lattimore would also be dismissed by the Federal Judge by 1955, and he would never be convicted of anything.

A letter writer from High Point, remaining anonymous, comments on the editorial, "Country Club Atop the Courthouse", thinks it was to be expected, but comments that it was not a new situation for the County Jail and hopes that the newspaper would not be too hard on the present sheriff or his trusted jailer, whom he regards as "the most sincere men the county has had in many years", that they had been victims of a situation which had caught up with them because of publicity "given out by a man who pleaded illiteracy on the witness stand". He recalls that a few years earlier a hotel manager had been given "three months of complete relaxation" in the County Jail, with a private room, sun baths daily, visitors night and day, daily newspapers and three meals per day from the hotel, while his employees suffered actual punishment, either in prison or from undue publicity.

A letter writer from Pinehurst comments on the May 5 editorial, "It Could Have Been Much Worse", which had responded to this writer's letter of the same date regarding his doubts about the President, thinks it was flattering to realize that one of his letters had enough importance to warrant an editorial, but also thinks it necessary to bring up some points which the editorial had made, especially in light of the fact that the newspaper had supported General Eisenhower in the 1952 election. He takes issue with the editorial's comparison between the first 100 days of President Truman's first full term, starting in 1949, and the first 100 days of the Eisenhower Administration in terms of the amount of major legislation which had been passed, saying that in his letter he had made no mention of President Truman in that regard. He says that he did not defend President Truman or his 1949 program, but that since Republicans opposed him and many Democrats had fought his renomination, he faced a nearly impossible situation with Congress, whereas President Eisenhower faced a friendly Congress in which Democrats were supporting him more unanimously than Republicans, as explained by Senate Minority Leader Lyndon Johnson, who had said that "while the Democrats want to be the 'loyal opposition', so far they have only had the chance to be loyal." It indicates that with the exception of FDR in 1932, no man had begun his term as President with the popular support given President Eisenhower, and so he asks whether the President had availed himself of that support to become leader of the people, a question posed by many commentators, columnists and reporters, and a question which was apparently being answered in the negative. He also expresses opinions on other points raised in the editorial and concludes that the Republicans were learning the political facts of life the hard way, after being out of power for 20 years, realizing now that it was harder to be on the inside with responsibilities than to criticize from the outside.

He also congratulates the newspaper on its May 7 editorial, "The Right of Fair Trial Reaffirmed", supporting the points made therein regarding the charges against Owen Lattimore, and also thanks the newspaper for mentioning his previous letter and discussing his opinions.

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.