The Charlotte News
Tuesday, September 1, 1953
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that at Panmunjom, the prisoner exchange program entered its fifth and possibly last week this date, with 100 additional Americans released, and another 100 promised the following day, along with 200 South Koreans, which would account for the smallest daily released total since the program had begun 28 days earlier. In addition to the 100 Americans released this date, 250 South Koreans, 25 British, 20 Turks and five Australians were freed. Among those released were two high-ranking allied officers, Lt. Col. James Carne, commander of the first Battalion of Britain's Gloucestershire Regiment, all but wiped out when cut off in the Imjin River battle of April, 1951, and Lt. Col. Paul Liles of the U.S., who had spent nearly three years in captivity. The latter told of systematic Communist pressure on prisoners to sign confessions and deliver propaganda broadcasts, indicating that he and a group of prisoners had been nearly starved to death and then forced to broadcast over Pyongyang radio, facing the alternative of a 100-mile march over frozen highways, which he termed a death sentence.
Thus far, the Communists had returned 2,927 of the promised 3,313 Americans, with indications the previous day that 50 additional Americans would be added to that total.
An American airman liberated this date said that he was questioned by a Russian who showed him plans for new U.S. warplanes and maps of American airbases, after his B-26 bomber had been shot down in March, 1951. He said the Russian had pulled a gun and laid it on the table, then showed him the drawings. He said some of the aircraft were not recognizable to him and he could not answer questions about them, but some were familiar, among them drawings of B-51's and B-47's.
Pyongyang Radio in North Korea said that six top North Korean officials, including Premier Kim Il Sung and Foreign Minister Nam Il, had left by train for Moscow this date, at the invitation of the Soviets. The broadcast did not provide the reason for the trip.
In Bonn, the West German Government said this date that it had uncovered a Communist plot to wreck the national elections of September 6 by destroying voting stations throughout the country. It said that it had captured Communist agents in an attempted mass sneak invasion of West Germany during the previous three days, and that they had admitted the plot to send squads of riot-trained toughs to attack election officials, destroy ballot boxes and frighten away voters. The "terror plan" called for groups of 20 hardened Communists to descend on each voting station. Federal border police and local police had arrested 4,500 of the agents along the interzonal frontier separating West and East Germany, most of whom had already been returned. Border police said that hundreds of others might still be coming in through isolated points on the frontier. The 10,000-member border police force was supplemented by 10,000 regular police, and would remain on a state of alert until the voting ended the following Sunday night.
We again hate to make this comparison, but it sounds very much like what the current occupant of the White House has been stimulating for months among the far right kookoos of this country in advance of our November 3 elections, in the hope that somewhere out of the chaos might be dragged a victory from the jaws of certain defeat, a foregone conclusion at this point unless one discounts every poll in the country, including Republican internal polls. Nevertheless, the anti-democratic Republican majority of the Senate appears hell-bent on confirming to the Supreme Court a justice-designate who refuses to say what her positions are on such common-sense issues as climate change, playing a stonewall game of "I know nothing", "It's not my job to be informed on common-sense issues when they are controversial", for that would violate the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Such barnyard fertilizer we have scarcely ever heard in the history of this country.
You will never hear more succinctly put what is actually going on in our country than as stated by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island during the confirmation hearings this week. Pay close attention. If you want your country bought and sold by a bunch of right-wing kookoos, you are well on your way.
We again state that the far more sensible thing to have done in this process, as occurred in October, 1956, an election year, after the retirement of Justice Sherman Minton from the Supreme Court, announced in early September, would have been to have adjourned the Senate and allowed the current occupant of the White House to have made a recess appointment, subject to confirmation or not by the new Senate in January, with the recess appointee able to serve at least a year, regardless of subsequent action by the Senate. The Senate was in recess in the fall of 1956 when President Eisenhower made the appointment of Justice William Brennan, effective in mid-October, subsequently confirmed by the Senate the following year. Justice Brennan, a Democrat, had full bipartisan support, and there was little doubt at the time that President Eisenhower would be re-elected—quite the opposite scenario from that at present. And the present scenario is quite unprecedented, despite all of the lies being told by McConnell and the Sing-Along Gang. The object is to steal the lifetime appointments to the Federal courts, most especially the Supreme Court, for a White House occupant who has been thoroughly repudiated by the American people, impeached by the House for high crimes and misdemeanors, which could have included solicitation of a bribe from a foreign head of state, and who should have been removed from office earlier this year, would have been in any just, bipartisan form of our democracy.
The only remedy to halt this madness appears to be reform of the Supreme Court, adding at least two and preferably four justices, a long overdue expansion to reduce the workload of the individual justices and potentially enable some expansion of the very limited caseload which can be heard before the nation's highest court. The size of the Court has been frozen since the time of President Grant when there were fewer than one-eighth the present population of the country, and is, therefore, in its present status, quite as antiquated as the convention of the electoral college, quaint, but no longer serving modern democracy, relics of the 18th and 19th centuries. In the meantime, the various circuit courts of appeal have been expanded, and there is no earthly reason, save political control, to resist expansion of the Supreme Court. The Republicans do not own the majority of the Court, as they seem to think that they do, ever since the Nixon Administration, having controlled the majority of the Court for 50 consecutive years, since 1970, an outrage in any democracy, even in the present Trump virtual dictatorship, with an obeisant Senate majority as weak as McConnell's chin. Again, since 1969, at the start of which there were five to four Democratic to Republican appointees, having at that time swung back and forth between that balance after 1958, there have been four Democratic appointees to the Supreme Court, while there have been 16 Republican appointees, including the present nominee, counting twice Justice Rehnquist, first appointed in 1972 by President Nixon and then elevated by President Reagan in 1986 to Chief. Republican Presidents have in the past 52 years, in other words, appointed 80 percent of the Supreme Court Justices. Is that fair in a democracy? especially when two of the last three appointments have occurred through theft of those seats, as was the case with the first two appointees by President Nixon, and when during that 52 years, Democrats have been in the White House for 20 of those years, with two more terms won by the popular vote, arguably one of those terms won also in the electoral college, a result the accuracy of which will never be known because of the intervention of five Republican-appointed Justices to stop the recount in Florida in 2000.
We reiterate that no one with any decent sense of judicial ethics would even participate in such an unjust, hypocritical procedure, which disgraces this country throughout the world and renders it no longer a beacon of democracy, but rather a laughing stock. Is it not a violation of Canon 5, indicating that a Federal judge should refrain from participation in political activities, for a sitting Federal judge to participate knowingly in such a highly partisan, politicized process so close to the presidential election? the very announcement of her nomination, in addition to having been a "super-spreader event" for the coronavirus, plainly having been calculated for political purposes in the presidential campaign, a very good practical reason for not putting forth a nomination so close to the election in which the incumbent is running. Those idiots who try to claim that if the Democrats were in this position, they would be doing the same thing, do not speak from any precedent, for there is none. The Republican claim that there is nothing unusual about the timetable of the hearings on the nomination, that this Justice or that Justice was confirmed within x number of days after nomination, conveniently sidesteps the principal issue, that at no time in the country's history has a nomination been initiated and considered by the Senate within 90 days of a presidential election, vacancies having occurred by death or retirement three prior times during that period, in 1828, in 1864 and in 1956, in each case with the incumbent President seeking re-election. These deceivers about historical precedent seek to appeal only to the fools and idiots of the country who have no sense of its history and cannot see beyond their own noses far enough to realize that their democracy is being bought and sold by corporate interests, having little to do with their pet peeves regarding prior Supreme Court decisions.
At the U.N. in New York, the four-member U.N. tribunal for the U.N. staff restored the jobs to four employees and provided damages totaling $122,500 to seven others, all American citizens, who had been fired because they refused to answer U.S. Government questions regarding Communist ties. The tribunal held that an employee could invoke the Fifth Amendment and did not thereby violate U.N. staff rules. The tribunal upheld the firing of nine others, seven of whom were involved in Communist inquiries and two others for non-political reasons, because they were "temporary-indefinite" employees, subject to dismissal by the U.N. Secretary-General if he thought such action was in the interests of the organization. An eleventh permanent employee had admitted having been a member of the Communist Party in 1936, but had been fired by former Secretary-General Trygve Lie because the employee refused to identify to the Senate Internal Security subcommittee the person who had invited her to join the party in 1935. The appeal of another permanent employee had been referred back to the staff joint appeals board for another hearing, after he had appeared before a Federal grand jury investigating subversion, in which the U.N. had found, as grounds for his firing, that he had not provided a candid account of former employment as required by U.N. regulations. A spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold said that he was studying the decision, and particularly the order of reinstatement of the four employees. If he refused to restore their jobs, they could demand more damages.
The Atomic Energy Commission announced the previous night that Russia had produced another atomic explosion on August 23, but that all evidence gathered thus far indicated it was not a hydrogen blast, though appeared to have considerable power. It said that it had the power about equal to recent tests of the U.S. in Nevada and that no further announcement would be made unless intelligence indicated information of greater interest. The last of the tests in Nevada, on June 4, had an estimated power 24 times that of the Hiroshima bomb dropped in August, 1945, and could be observed up to 500 miles away, had been described as the largest atomic explosion ever set off in the continental U.S. On August 19, the AEC had announced that the Russians had detonated a hydrogen fusion-type device on August 12.
In St. Louis, the American Legion convention conducted a parade through the downtown streets for about ten hours, the highlight of the four-day event. Vice-President Nixon, pictured on the page, was present, along with veterans of World War I and II, and the Korean War.
In San Antonio, it was reported that General Jonathan Wainwright, 70, hero of Corregidor in early 1942, had suffered a second stroke and was in critical condition at Brooke Army Hospital. He had first been hospitalized on July 6 and had suffered a cerebral thrombosis on August 13, but since had shown marked improvement. He had retired from the Army exactly six years earlier, after having been decorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Cross for valorous actions. He had served 35 years before retirement.
In Galena Park, Tex., an Army private whose sister had two death certificates for him, one signed by former President Truman, showing that he had been killed in action on May 18, 1951, but who nevertheless was quite alive and had been released as part of the prisoner exchange program in Korea, faced a dilemma. His 23-year old wife had a one-year old son by her second husband, the child having been born seven months after her second marriage was annulled. The sister indicated the previous night that she was certain that her brother knew that his wife had subsequently married but was not clear that he understood she had a child, though she had reported everything to him in many letters, not all of which, she believed, he had received, as he had never mentioned the child in writing back to her. He had said he would do whatever his wife wanted to do. The wife did not wish to speak with newsmen and had not revealed any plans to her sister-in-law, but did say that she was anxious to see her husband, whom she could not legally divorce until he returned to the U.S. The couple had been together only five days after their marriage in April, 1950, when the private was ordered to the West Coast, and then subsequently shipped to Korea. He was identified as a war prisoner finally in late 1951. He may need to punt as he is way behind the chains and it's fourth down.
In Peekskill, N.Y., a high school football player collapsed and died this date while practicing in 100-degree heat.
The Commerce Department reported this date that employment had climbed to a record high in August and that unemployment had dropped to a post-war low of 1,240,000. More than 63.4 million persons were employed, dropping unemployment to 308,000, which officials considered a bare minimum at 1.9 percent, compared to 2.5 percent a year earlier.
Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson, speaking in Mineral Springs, S.C., said this date that Government farm programs provided the farmer with too little income and security at the cost of too much dependence on Washington. He said that there should not be surpluses of stored food while American products were priced out of normal markets. He wanted improvement in Government programs without resulting in lower prices or lower farm income. He said that the Agriculture Department was seeking ideas on those improvements through grassroots studies and the views of the best professional people in agriculture. He indicated that they had discovered that not every farm commodity should be treated the same, and that some commodities ought have a domestic and export market plan, based on two price structures. He ignored a suggestion by Senator Burnet Maybank of South Carolina that he discuss an order requiring anti-discrimination pledges from banks which participated in the farm price support program, which the Senator had addressed in a letter to the Secretary the previous day, hoping that the section would be stricken from the contracts and that the Secretary would so urge.
Tom Fesperman of The News indicates that the City Government and three railroads had reached an agreement this date to share equally the cost of constructing a new bridge on E. 11th Street between N. College and Brevard Streets in Charlotte, whereby each of the four parties would pay a quarter of the cost.
On the editorial page, "How the Press Handled the Kinsey Report" quotes from several sources regarding the presentation of the analysis by Associated Press science correspondent Alton Blakeslee of the report of Dr. Alfred Kinsey on female sexuality, which had appeared in many newspapers, including The News. The Birmingham News had called it "a highly important science story about vital human relationships", while the Jersey City Journal described it as "arrogant bunk". The Tampa Daily Times found that the secrecy procedures surrounding the report were akin to those normally reserved for Presidential messages and the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel believed they were designed to whip up "pornographic interest". The Rock Island Argus asserted that public interest amounted to "morbid curiosity", while the San Francisco Chronicle described it as "an honest and desirable quest for knowledge where knowledge is especially important."
Some newspapers had omitted any reference to the report, with the Sioux City Journal explaining that it was motivated "by desire to reserve to parents the right to determine what their minor children shall or shall not read." The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin said that it was "impossible to present any adequate summary of its findings without giving unnecessary offense to many", and that a censored account would be dishonest reporting. The Miami Daily News found the language of the report objectionable, and the Springfield State Register thought the detail of the report was "salacious and in violation of privacy".
Many newspapers which printed Mr. Blakeslee's analysis of the report had stressed the importance of the story, such as the Plainfield Courier-News, the Canton Repository, the Los Angeles Herald-Express, and the Buffalo Evening News, all stressing their public responsibility to present news, good or bad.
The Associated Press had found that a few of the front-page policy statements explaining why the story was not being carried were longer and had more references to the highlights of the report than many of the abbreviated stories about it.
It says that The News had given the matter long and mature thought before printing Mr. Blakeslee's summary, and concluded that, despite some glaring inadequacies in the Kinsey report, it was a most significant contribution in its field, determining that the readers deserved to have the analysis by Mr. Blakeslee, which was "tempered, intelligent and objective".
"Justice" indicates that Robeson County's solicitor John W. Campbell had been cited for failing to stop at a stop sign, but had nevertheless called his own case and paid, without contest, the $14.75 fine, then returned to the work of prosecuting the docket. It suggests that the solicitor could teach a lesson to the judge in Zebulon who had declared the Raleigh doctor not guilty of speeding after a Highway Patrol officer had reduced the charge from going 85 mph to 70 mph to protect the doctor's driver's license under a new law.
"Spies, Government and Headlines" indicates that the Senate Internal Security subcommittee had obtained testimony and case histories of Communists and compiled them into a report indicating that during the 1930's and 1940's, subversive elements had infiltrated many branches of the Government. It recommends the report but observes that those who would not take the time to get behind the headlines should bear in mind that testimony regarding undisclosed spy rings still inside the Government had come from a witness who was told that there were two undisclosed spy rings when she was still in the Communist Party, which she had left prior to 1948.
It ventures that unsupported reports of undisclosed spy rings five or more years earlier might make headlines in some magazines, but that did not mean that the Republican Administration was a "spy nest".
"A Rebel Editor Aims at a Yankee" tells of Clare Cotton of the Carteret County News-Times having pointed out that cigarettes accounted for most of the tobacco excise tax, that North Carolina produced most of the cigarettes, and that most of the tobacco excise tax was collected in the state. Yet, the tax stamp had on it the countenance of DeWitt Clinton of New York, and so Mr. Cotton suggested that it would be more fitting to replace his image with that of a North Carolinian, suggesting James Buchanan Duke, founder of the American Tobacco Co. in Durham.
The piece begs to differ, finding that since the excise tax was a source of irritation, it was better to blame it on a Yankee rather than a Southerner.
"Zounds!" indicates that some North Carolina editors had received a letter from a man in New York City purportedly seeking information about the age of crows, and printed same in good faith, only to find out that the old crow routine was just a press agent's stunt to promote a bourbon of the same name. It suggests that the profession was going to the dogs when North Carolina editors could not spot a "whiff of bourbon even when it's disguised as a publicity stunt."
Wethinks it meant to say, "when it's a disguised publicity stunt", but we quibble with a throw-away to fill space.
A piece from the Sanford Herald, titled "Has All Parenthood Failed?" tells of the Durham Morning Herald having found from a pamphlet, Happy Journey: Preparing Your Child for School, endorsed by two branches of the National Education Association and the National Foundation of Parents and Teachers, that there was more to school preparation than equipping the young student with supplies, that pre-school preparation or lack thereof had a lasting impact on the child's attitude toward school.
It indicates that it had taken an informal poll, starting with the 11-year old girl in the household, finding that she found school "gooky", extending it to the newspaper delivery boy, who said that the schoolhouse should not even be mentioned to him, and extending further to the high school kids at the drugstore, one of whom said, "with Godfrey and Love gone and Rockingham stronger than ever, school ain't going to be worth the effort."
It finds, therefore, that there was need for a revival of preparation for school prior to matriculation.
We had our brown vinyl-covered notebook, replete with a good stock of ring-bound paper and No. 2 pencils aplenty quite in possession and at the ready right on the first day of school in the first grade, only to find to our chagrin that none of the other incipient wastrels had in their store any such implements of diligent study and open reception to receipt of the epistemology necessary to carry on through life, on that first day, it having been an abbreviated day for registration only. We shall leave it to the psychoanalytic among you to discern whatever that might have meant in terms of lasting impact on us. We did not read
Drew Pearson indicates that the Army was taking a critical view of the shapes of WAC's, ordering a special program of "formal physical exercise periods" and "instruction in wholesome dietary habits for lady soldiers who bulge in the wrong places." The new standards required that a WAC had to maintain her weight "well distributed" and within the limits established by a regulation for her height and age, as well as be "free from obvious defects of appearance remediable by physical exercise and good health practices." She was also expected to keep vigil on her "posture and physical bearing". Those who did not comply would be afforded a chance to participate in individual or team sports or physical activities to get rid of the extra pounds. If that failed, they would be required to take formal exercises, which would be conducted with scientific regard for individual shapes and sizes. The Army regulations indicated that an hour of such exercise once or twice a month would be useless and possibly detrimental. It also said that the rigorous exercise regimen and the development of a "highly aggressive spirit" required of men training for combat were neither required nor appropriate to the military duties of women, and would therefore not be pursued in the women's program. It prescribed that instruction in diet would be given by dietary experts and that women whose dietary problems could not be corrected by moderate intake of well-balanced meals would be referred to the medical office for advice. Some WAC mess halls had set aside special "diet tables" for the fat WAC's.
The fire which had destroyed the giant G.M. plant at Lavonia, Mich., he suggests, might have been good as a warning to the country, or even an act of God. The machinery which had been burned up was that which produced the hydromatic transmissions for the Oldsmobiles, Pontiacs and Cadillacs, as well as for Army tanks, but the specific loss was overshadowed by the emphasis it had placed on the danger of Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson's "single source of supply" policy, which he had carried over from G.M., where he had been president, to the Defense Department. G.M. was now making the transmissions for tanks in another factory, but if the policy of Mr. Wilson had already been implemented, there would have been no alternative factory in which to make them, as it would have been eliminated as a cost-cutting measure. Planners at the Pentagon had thus begun to re-think the policy, in terms of a potential hydrogen bomb attack by Russia. Mr. Wilson thought only in terms of big business, and he had said privately that small companies were a nuisance which should be used only as sub-contractors, whereas large companies should obtain all of the primary defense contracts.
G.M.'s figures showed that it paid 15 percent of all corporate taxes in the U.S. and 5 percent of all the excess profits taxes, with a gross income of 11 billion dollars per year, more than most states within the country and more than most nations.
Budget Office director Joseph Dodge secretly notified all Government agencies the previous week that they should plan for even larger budget cuts the following year, meaning that the Defense Department would receive another cut of six billion dollars, while Russia was spending more money on defense.
A Hollywood agent had signed a jet
ace from the Korean War, Captain Joe McConnell, but the Air Force
sent a full colonel to Hollywood to assist the captain in getting out
of the exclusive contract, and he had signed instead to do a 3-D
technicolor movie for Warner Brothers
Stewart Alsop compares what the U.S. had done in foreign policy to what it had hoped to do. In the fall of 1950, when Secretary of State Acheson had pounded on a table in New York and demanded the rearmament of West Germany, American policy had undergone a great change which was hardly noticed at the time. It was based on a series of logical assumptions made at the Pentagon, that Korean aggression demonstrated that the Soviets were willing to risk a world war, that the Soviets would have a decisive stockpile of atomic weaponry by 1953-54, the "time of greatest danger", that if at that time the Soviets still had the power to overrun the European Continent, the balance of power would shift in favor of Russia, that a solid defense of Western Europe thus had to be built, and that no such defense was possible without the participation of West Germany.
Since that time, the goal of establishing a French Army of at least 28 standing divisions by 1953-54 had not been reached, the French having 14 divisions in Europe, of which six remained wholly or partially on paper, with French plans calling for a reduction in military spending, a tendency which carried through all of Western Europe, including Britain. The original Pentagon timetable had called for German "military contribution" within 18 months of the time of Secretary Acheson's statement in fall, 1950, but at present, it would take a miracle for West Germany to meet that contribution within the ensuing 18 months. The Pentagon timetable for American build-up had also been extended, with further extensions likely to come.
Yet, there was no reason to revise the Pentagon's two principal assumptions, that the Soviets were willing to risk war and would have a decisive atomic stockpile by 1953-54, the present.
Mr. Alsop indicates that American military power had increased since fall, 1950, with at least a powerful deterrent having been created in Western Europe, when combined with the development of the tactical atomic bomb and the resistance shown in Soviet satellite countries, such that the Red Army could not take Europe without a warning mobilization and heavy sacrifice.
Yet, there was a great difference between what had been done and that which had been hoped for by this juncture, and so, he ventures, it might be a good time for U.S. policymakers to take a new look at the situation in Europe. Regardless of the outcome of the September 6 German elections, as long as Germany remained split, the overriding interest of all Germans would be to reunite their country. But the French had an overriding interest in preventing the effective rearmament of Germany. Thus a question might be posed whether Franco-German military and political integration was really practically feasible, even if the French National Assembly could be prodded to ratify the European Defense Community, the unified European army. Another question might then be posed whether, if the European army was created, it could be expected to defend Western Europe as long as the Red Army remained in Eastern Europe and whether with that status quo, any type of defense of the Continent was possible. If that was not the case, then the question might be posed as to what type of risks and concessions the U.S. was prepared to make to obtain the withdrawal of the Red Army from Eastern Europe. If the Soviets would not withdraw, a probable outcome, it appeared time to show the world that such was the case.
Mr. Alsop indicates that instead of asking those serious questions, the new Administration appeared increasingly committed to policies which were originated by the prior Administration, under very different circumstances from those presently extant.
James Marlow indicates that Secretary of State Dulles, when he spoke the previous week in Boston before the ABA convention, had suggested, among other things, changes to the U.N. Charter. The Charter could be changed at any time by a vote of the General Assembly, but was coming up for automatic review on the tenth anniversary of the creation of the U.N., in 1955, and so the speech by Secretary Dulles appeared as a trial balloon to attempt to suggest ideas to be discussed during that period of consideration of change. Because Secretary Dulles had been very vague in his suggestions for change, he would probably have to return to the subject later to get specific discussions started.
One of the problems at the U.N. had been the repeated use by Russia of its Security Council veto, reserved to the five permanent members, the U.S., Russia, France, Britain and China, the latter as constituted at the time of the founding of the U.N., the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek. At one point during his talk before the ABA, Secretary Dulles had been critical of the overuse of the veto, but it was unlikely he wanted to eliminate it as it worked both ways, enabling the U.S. to block unwanted action by Russia. He indicates that if the veto had not been included in the Charter, it was unlikely that the U.S. would have ever ratified it.
A letter writer objects to the publication of the analysis of the Kinsey report on the front page of the newspaper, found it disgusting. She indicates that she was canceling her subscription, would miss such things as the Reverend Herbert Spaugh's column, but believes that everyone ought protest when the daily newspapers could not find something more beneficial to print.
A letter writer from Clarkton, N.C., finds the reporting by the newspaper about the nurse who had been murdered in Charlotte on August 2 to have been a "vulgar, Peglerish sort of job over the grave of a woman that couldn't defend herself against the insinuations and police searchers to tack something filthy on the victim."
The writer obviously must refer to some stories which had appeared on the inside pages of the newspaper, as there was nothing of the type either on the front page or the editorial page.
A letter writer from Gastonia finds that the speech before the ABA by Secretary of State Dulles had provided the best reason for the Bricker amendment to the Constitution, changing the ratification requirements for treaties to include executive agreements, which Secretary Dulles had found quite objectionable as hamstringing the President. The writer indicates that during the previous 20 or more years secret executive agreements without the consent of the Senate had provided proof of the need of such an amendment, thinks Secretary Dulles was opposed to it only because he was "one of that old line of internationalists that wants to give everything to these foreigners", to whom too much had been given, much of which had been done through executive agreements without the check of the Senate or the American people. He thinks that after a few more such executive agreements, there would be a dictatorship by executive order, which the Bricker amendment sought to prevent.
A letter writer finds the editorial which had sympathized with the lawyers who were criticized for defending subversives to have been "interesting", when a judge had criticized a witness for failing to identify her assailant, and a former president of the state bar association had publicly criticized lawyers for lacking appreciation of their duty as public servants. He thinks it would have been more appropriate for the judge to criticize lawyers in general and was awaiting improvement of the ethics of the legal profession resulting from the speech by J. Spencer Bell. He finds lawyers deserving of criticism, not sympathy, that they had thick skins and could take care of themselves. He prefers that the editors have sympathy for the "poor, suffering, downtrodden little man, and don't offer any more sympathy for those lawyer fellows."
Links-Date — Links-Subj.