The Charlotte News
Friday, June 11, 1954
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports from Hanoi that French and Vietnamese leaders rallied the defense of the imperiled Red River Delta in person this date against the Vietminh forces threatening the vital area from three sides and from within. General Paul Ely, new French military and political commander in Indo-China, arrived in Hanoi the previous night with the promise that he would lead the fight against the Vietminh in the area, stating that he believed that the commander should be with his fighting men. Vietnamese Premier Prince Buu Loc and members of his war Cabinet met in Hanoi for the first time the previous night, drafting a "G.I. Bill of Rights" designed to speed lagging plans to increase the Vietnamese Army to 500,000 men by the end of the year. There had been little public response to previous enlistment efforts and draft dodging had been widespread. A communiqué from the Cabinet announced special allotments and material assistance ordered for all families affected by the draft of their sons or husbands, and that Government agencies would make sure that draftees did not lose their jobs during their two years of military training.
At Geneva, Britain and the U.S. were reported to have agreed this date on a general procedure for winding up the deadlocked conference. It was understood that the Western powers expected to end the Korean part of the conference by the following Wednesday, unless there were surprise developments, but there were no details available on Western plans for ending the Indo-China portion of the conference.
In a nationwide broadcast speech the previous night, the President pledged to continue the job of rooting out subversion and appealed for political unity on his legislative program, including his embattled flexible farm price support plan. He said, "Let us have less political fission and more political fusion." (Is that like a political hydrogen bomb?) He addressed about 1,000 members and friends of the Citizens for Eisenhower Congressional Committee. The speech was interrupted 32 times by applause, with the biggest burst coming when he promised to stay on the job "everlastingly" in uprooting subversion wherever it might be found. There was laughter when he said, "In spite of highly publicized distractions, Congress has been hard at work."
In the 32nd day of the Senate Investigations subcommittee hearings on the dispute between the Army and Senator McCarthy, the Senator continued his testimony this date, saying that he had been "completely facetious" when he had told Secretary of the Army Robert Stevens the prior November that Roy Cohn, usual chief counsel for the subcommittee, thought G. David Schine, unpaid aide to the subcommittee, "should be a general and work from a penthouse of the Waldorf"—a statement which the Senator could not deny having made as it was transcribed as part of one of the monitored phone calls between the two men. He claimed that he was "ribbing" Secretary Stevens during the call, which occurred a few days after Private Schine had been drafted on November 3. During the call, the Senator had said that Mr. Cohn was being "completely unreasonable" about Private Schine, and that maybe the latter could be given weekends off from the Army "so his girls won't get too lonesome". In explanation of that latter statement, the Senator said that Mr. Cohn had been insistent that Mr. Schine's help was needed in preparing subcommittee reports—by implication, combined with Robert C. Ruark's quip of the previous day regarding "honorable old women—male and female", suggesting...? He said that he believed that Mr. Schine could wrap up his subcommittee work by spending a couple of weekends per month on it, but that it turned out that Mr. Cohn had been correct in that regard. The Army had introduced evidence that on at least one weekend furlough pass received by Private Schine for the purpose of doing subcommittee work, he and Mr. Cohn had gone on a dinner date with two girls. Subcommittee special counsel Ray Jenkins questioned Senator McCarthy as to whether or not he had been "lax" in not requiring Mr. Schine to complete his subcommittee work during the four-month interim between July and November when it was known that Mr. Schine was to be drafted, and Senator McCarthy responded with disagreement, saying that it had been no favor to the Private to have him work on weekends when other draftees were "out dancing, going to the recreation hall".
The Republican majority of the subcommittee had voted the previous night to wind up the hearings with Senator McCarthy, Mr. Cohn, who had already testified, and Francis Carr, staff director of the subcommittee. The hearings would conclude the following Thursday. Again, there is no transcript of this date's hearing available online.
Senator Ralph Flanders of Vermont demanded this date, in a Senate floor speech, that the Senate oust Senator McCarthy as chairman of the Investigations subcommittee and its parent Government Operations Committee unless the Senator purged himself of contempt and answered charges on his finances made against him in 1952 by a subcommittee. Senator Flanders said that Senator McCarthy had treated with contempt the three-man subcommittee of 1952, charged with looking into claims made by former Senator William Benton of Connecticut and the counter-charges by Senator McCarthy. He indicated that the subcommittee report had stated that Senator McCarthy had rejected the subcommittee's invitation to testify and so it had finally determined that the charges made against him were inconclusive. Among the things left undetermined was whether the Senator had used for his own benefit some of the money contributed to his efforts against Communism and whether he had improperly accepted a $10,000 fee from Lustron Corp., manufacturer of prefabricated housing, for a short booklet he had written on prefabricated housing. Senator Flanders had entered the hearing room during the morning and tossed a note to Senator McCarthy, inviting him to attend his floor speech, to which Senator McCarthy responded by saying that he had no interest in any speech by the Senator. Senator McCarthy later responded to the speech by saying that he believed that "they should get a man with a net and take [Senator Flanders] to a good, quiet place."
In Washington, new Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., of North Carolina was sworn in this date, succeeding deceased Senator Clyde Hoey. A special railroad car of the Senator's friends had come with him from his hometown of Morganton. When asked about his preference for committee assignment, he grinned and said that he would like to be on the Judiciary Committee, but believed he did not have a chance. He would be assigned to the Government Operations Committee, chaired by Senator McCarthy. Maybe he can straighten that nut out before it is too late.
The daughter of James Roosevelt, who had just won the California Democratic primary for a Congressional seat, gave birth this date to a child. Her husband was serving in the Army.
In Boston, former Secretary of the Navy Charles Adams, 87, died at his home the previous day, having served during the Hoover Administration. He was the great-great grandson of President John Adams. His son was president of Raytheon Manufacturing Co.
In Coshocton, O., authorities planned to return to the farm of a former mental patient, which had yielded two bodies during the previous six days, including that of a young male schoolteacher and part-time auto salesman who had disappeared after demonstrating a car for the former mental patient on June 2. The man was charged with first-degree murder and while authorities were interrogating him about the homicide, he told them that he killed another man, then later denied it. But the son of the victim who was subject of the recanted confession, searching for his father's body on the farm the previous day, noticed an unusual contour of the land about 200 yards from the house, and sheriff's deputies then unearthed the body of another unidentified man, with similar injuries to those of the victim about whom the former mental patient had confessed and then recanted.
In Phoenix, Ariz., a police force combing the rugged Superstition Mountains picked up fresh tracks of an armed and dangerous kidnapper early this date and bloodhounds were being sent to the area. The man being sought had allegedly abducted the wife of a wealthy Phoenix pipe and steel company executive two days earlier and then released her the previous day after a $75,000 ransom had been paid. She had been held for 29 hours, most of the time within the mountains, site of the Lost Dutchman gold mine, an area dotted with old mine shafts which would make excellent hiding places. The kidnaped woman was released unharmed.
Donald MacDonald of The News indicates that less than 12 hours after a defendant had been arrested for attempted rape and assault with a deadly weapon, he was sentenced to two years on the roads on the assault charge, and probable cause was found in the attempted rape case in City Recorder's Court. He was thus bound over to Superior Court for trial on that latter charge. Police indicated that the man had crept up behind two women and a man who were waiting for a taxi early this date, struck the man a paralyzing blow to the head and then grabbed one of the women and attempted to rape her. Her screams attracted two policemen passing in a cruiser and the officers chased the young man until he was arrested inside his home.
On the editorial page, "Governors Eye 'Mississippi Plan' as Device to Thwart School Ruling", a by-lined piece by editor Pete McKnight, writing from Richmond at the Southern governors conference, indicates that the attending governors of 15 states were remaining largely mum about what they were discussing in private meetings. But the conference gave the impression that the governors were not inactive in the face of the Brown v. Board of Education decision of May 17. He finds that the intangible results should be the quieting of apprehensions and feelings of frustration which appeared to characterize the dominant white majority throughout the South in the wake of the decision.
The conference had put forth the "Mississippi Plan" for circumventing the decision, a plan which might become the pattern all over the South unless better legal experts than the assembled attorneys general could spot holes in it. He indicates that the Plan was too complicated to explain in detail but essentially would place with local school authorities the final determination on which school any given individual child would attend, based on such factors as aptitude, ability to get along with others, capacity for total growth, competitive spirit, effective environmental background, and other such indicators, which Mr. McKnight regards as the "gobbledygook of modern, 'progressive' education", with no reference made to race in the determination of pupil assignment. There was a belief that this Plan might evade the Brown ruling, as such factors could not be challenged en masse, as a separate case would have to be brought for each individual pupil so assigned. It was reasoned that the resulting delay, while prolix litigation proceeded, could go on for at least a generation.
Mr. McKnight indicates that perhaps the most significant thing to come out of the conference was the general agreement by the governors that the Supreme Court implementing decision would be neither arbitrary nor capricious, the governors believing that they would be given a reasonable period of time to effect integration.
West Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky had made it clear that they planned to move rapidly toward full integration of their schools. To the other extreme were South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi, which had indicated that they would abolish their public school systems before integrating them.
It might be noted that Mr. McKnight begins the piece by indicating that the governors were staying at the John Marshall Hotel, a bit of irony, he suggests, that appeared to escape them, in that Chief Justice Marshall had been more responsible than any other single person in the history of the country in making the Federal judicial branch of the Government viable, on par with the executive and legislative branches.
We are aware, incidentally, that a history professor has been assiduously at work dragging down the historical reputations of two of the most esteemed members of the Supreme Court in the country's history, Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Joseph Story, the latter of whom announced the decision in the Amistad case in 1841. (In a book, the professor placed them in the company of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who announced the infamous Dred Scott fugitive slave decision in 1856, and as to Mr. Taney, we have no quarrel as to his probable racial bias.) We assume he included Justice Story in his retrospective hit-pieces on the two esteemed Justices because Justice Story, who had the profoundest loathing for the institution of slavery, had provided in his writings nothing but admiration and praise for Chief Justice Marshall, both as to his legal acumen and his personal character, with whom he served on the Court from his own appointment in 1812 until Chief Justice Marshall's death in 1835.
The history professor betrays complete lack of understanding of how Supreme Court decisions are written, not by the single Justice announcing them but rather by compromise to reach a consensus of opinion on the Court, in his warped "analysis" of the Amistad opinion, for instance, starting at page 72 of the article, coming out exactly opposite the general trend of legal thought regarding that case, claiming Justice Story betrayed his personal "racism" by condoning therein slavery. He is treating a legal opinion as if it were a personally authored history treatise in an academic discipline, a naivete carried over to the subsequent analysis of legal opinions delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, supposedly "racist" because of specific language utilized which may not have been the language preferred at all by the Chief Justice in the drafting of the opinions in issue. Someone needs to instruct him that the law is very different from general academia, that legal analytical reasoning, always constrained to precedent and the rule of stare decisis unless the prior rules, as the Court found in Brown, demonstrate through time that they are out of joint with the times, not serving their intended purpose and also not susceptible to sound legal reasoning under the Constitution, is very different from the academic discipline of history, where, while constrained hopefully to historically agreed fact, the ultimate conclusions and interpretations rest wholly on the shoulders of the author of a particular work. Not so in the framing of Supreme Court opinions. Anyone who has been to law school for three years, as the professor has not, though teaching legal history in several law schools over the years, would recognize instantly the flaws in his analysis of the Amistad opinion, that while the opinion distinguishes precedent, it nevertheless provides deference to precedent because of the rules of stare decisis and the firm rule and practice in the law that decisions will not disturb binding prior precedent without necessity and will only sidestep precedent whenever possible through legal and/or factual distinctions, as in Amistad, to avoid direct conflict with precedent, while rendering the result believed to be just under the particular circumstances of the case, in a manner, in the case of Supreme Court cases, most likely to effectuate majority consensus on the Court. The professor plainly does not understand these longstanding practices in the law, extending back to the founding principles of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. The law is essentially conservative in that it relies primarily on precedent for decision-making, being dynamic and thus liberal, advancing toward change only incrementally, as necessary to accommodate the parties and facts and law at issue in a particular case, not being an institution by design, as the Presidency and the Congress, capable of promulgating new legislation or enacting it. The Court cannot usurp the function of either without treading on the carefully engineered balance of powers, which Chief Justice Marshall, for instance, in the early days of the republic, was careful to delineate and not transgress, while also engineering progress of the Court's basic role in the three-branch, balance-of-powers concept as established by the Founders, with salutary results through time.
Because of this fundamental misundertanding of the distinction between the study of history and the discipline of the practice of law and the method of legal reasoning and the manner in which are formed legal opinions rendered by justices of the Supreme Court, the professor's entire premise and argument fails miserably. The bottom line of the cases, that is their basic holding, is the only method by which divination of an opinion's political or social stance may be gauged, not the specific language or even the reasoning utilized to reach that holding, except in the case of plain intellectual dishonesty, perhaps, as a means to reach a decision, such as in Dred Scott, which is counter-productive to basic societal progress, though in that case upholding the basic principle believed viable at the time of slaves as chattels and thus subject to property laws, constrained to precedent in so holding in the days before the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of 1865 and 1868, respectively, much as the reasoning of Amistad was so constrained to recognize, but with an entirely different practical result, by sidestepping deftly the precedent which otherwise might have led to the human injustice realized in Dred Scott. Amistad is anything but racist. And the decision adverted to the prior opinions expressed in three instances by Chief Justice Marshall, one of which, from one of his speeches, not a legal opinion, was decisive in the outcome of the case, viz.:
"But they were not pirates, nor in any sense hostes humani generis. Cinque, the master-spirit who guided them, had a single object in view. That object was—not piracy or robbery—but the deliverance of himself and his companions in suffering, from unlawful bondage. They owed no allegiance to Spain. They were on board of the Amistad, by constraint. Their object was to free themselves from the fetters that bound them, in order that they might return to their kindred and their home. In so doing, they were guilty of no crime, for which they could be held responsible as pirates. (See Bee, 273.) Suppose, they had been impressed American seamen, who had regained their liberty in a similar manner, would they in that case have been deemed guilty of piracy and murder? Not! in the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall. In his celebrated speech in justification of the surrender by President Adams of Nash, under the British treaty, he says: 'Had Thomas Nash been an impressed American, the homicide on board the Hermione would most certainly not have been murder. The act of impressing an American is an act of lawless violence. The confinement on board a vessel is a continuation of that violence, and an additional outrage. Death committed within the United States, in resisting such violence, would not have been murder.' (Bee, 290.)"
Yet, despite that lack of legal acumen displayed by the professor outside the limited purview of legal history, so much did the University of Illinois at Chicago find estimable his book, as condensed in his more recent Atlantic hit-piece on Chief Justice Marshall, dead for 186 years and thus not available to speak for himself, that its board of trustees recently changed the name of their law school, dropping John Marshall from the marquee, based on his slave ownership, even though he deplored slavery and even represented, as a lawyer, free of charge, slaves seeking their freedom—see argument of Mr. Marshall at pages 329-331—, a fairly progressive thing to be doing in the Commonwealth of Virginia prior to 1801, when he was appointed Chief Justice by President John Adams.
We do not care what name the University of Illinois at Chicago gives to its law school, as that is none of our business, not having any relationship to the University of Illinois. But to make a splash in the press by publicly dropping the name of John Marshall because of his having owned slaves 186 years ago is nothing short of asinine and stupid beyond belief. It obviously indicates that there was no research done, no understanding of John Marshall's legal legacy to the nation, as the board of trustees reached that idiotic and myopic decision, looking at history through one very thick lens, hazed by time and the societal process of change since, as if the "facts" were discovered yesterday and correction of opinion must, in consequence, be made today, before sundown, lest someone think that the University of Illinois at Chicago condones slavery.
If you are going to try to eliminate Chief Justice Marshall from the legal landscape, then you had better return to an era when states' rights were paramount, holdover from the days of the Articles of Confederation, for it was Chief Justice Marshall who established firmly the concept of Federal supremacy over state laws via the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, holding in the Cohens v. Virginia decision, delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court's authority to review criminal law decisions from the court of last resort in any given jurisdiction regarding whether there was denial of a Federal Constitutional right in the lower court proceeding, among other innovations in the law for which he was largely responsible, establishing, as Mr. McKnight correctly stated, the judiciary as a co-equal branch of the Government, with the power to interpret state and Federal statutes as against the Constitution, having been largely a wastrel foundling when compared to the other two branches during the first 12 years after ratification of the Constitution in 1789. Cohens, alone, is the seminal case responsible for such later decisions as Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, establishing the right to effective counsel under the Sixth Amendment and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process, whenever there is at stake a liberty interest, potential incarceration, as in the misdemeanor case involved in Gideon, and any of a legion of other Supreme Court cases establishing the rights of accused persons under the Constitution, including Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, the bane to the old rubber-hose and coercive interrogation techniques employed in the past to extract false confessions, establishing the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer, hired or appointed by the court, present in the face of focused interrogation regarding specific criminal conduct of which the person being interrogated is a suspect, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, operating on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, all of those established rights stemming ultimately from the Federal supremacy principle established by the Cohens decision delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, and other decisions of the Court over which he presided for 34 decisive years in the history of the republic, by extension into more modern times.
Racist? We think not. Indeed, the effort by the history professor to undermine Chief Justice Marshall's and Justice Story's reputations and hence their legal credibility appears, when boiled down to cases, to be motivated by something quite distinct from and opposing of racial justice, hearkening shades of the conservative trend in the law to turn back the clock as exemplified by the "common sense" approach to the law, a catch-phrase for return to the past, of the Rehnquist Court of more recent years.
One might also read the opinion held of Chief Justice Marshall by John Quincy Adams, and realize that it was former President Adams who, 12 years after his Presidency, co-represented the slaves in the Amistad case before the Supreme Court.
The history professor might be brilliant in history, but if he wants to render historical opinion based on legal "analysis", he should first understand the basis for legal opinions, how they are constructed, and the context which they occupy in the legal trends through time, and apply legal reasoning to them, which probably would require three years of law school training, if not also some years of practice of the law or at least teaching of the substantive law, not just its history, before spouting from his hip nonsensical conclusions reached through myopia vis-à-vis the law.
It must be borne in mind that, in terms of decision-making, justices of the Supreme Court or any Federal court in those earlier times, prior to the Civil War and its aftermath, did not have the benefit of the working tools afforded by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, under which to justify their legal reasoning. While absurd contortions of the law to circumvent the Fourteenth Amendment, as best exemplified by the predominantly Republican-appointed Court which decided Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, are not excused by that lack of legal framework after 1868, before that time, they have to be, to a large extent, given deference for that constraint by the extant laws and Constitutional framework, and praised whenever, as in Amistad, they came to a just human conclusion, despite the strictures imposed on them by the times, the Constitution, and the laws then at work. They could not, contrary to popular opinion, fueled by such narrow focus as the professor's take, simply form the law out of whole cloth and hope to maintain a society of laws rather than men, the basic founding principle of our Constitution. It is not a popularity contest which determines the outcome of cases, nor should it be anywhere except in societies dangerously on the brink of falling by dint of submission to the commonweal and its demagogic hero of the moment leading the charge and determining "the law" by force of personality and mob action, such as in Nazi Germany. That vox populi is for the executive and legislative branches, determined by popular election, to discern and advance collectively where appropriate, not the courts, the courts' province being to determine, in this context, whether the laws passed by the legislative branch meet the requirements of the Constitution and established legal precedent under the Constitution as it presently exists in its still effective provisions, some of which having been rendered obsolete or altered by subsequently ratified amendment of the document.
Parenthetically, it is quite curious that we never hear, for instance, anything about Alexander Hamilton's views on race, he being the Founder who is the darling of the conservative political establishment and the Republicans. But we leave that aside for some future treatment.
The point is that in looking closely, with attempted semantic "analysis", at the racial views of anyone in the Nineteenth Century, including Abraham Lincoln, who, while a lawyer, statesman, and later a politician, was not a jurist, they are going to be disappointing and come out sounding "racist", when sought to be juxtaposed to modern views on race and racial justice. Learn from history that we change as a nation, and respect that process of slow change through time, how it is effected, rather than trying to destroy and hide from history through some silly, symbolic, quick-fix erasure of part of the past by removing this or that name from a building or this or that statue from a public area, without appreciation of its context in time. That quick-erasure, a white-out fix involved as surely in idee fixe stereotyping as any other racist view, does nothing to change views on race, indeed, will only harden and exacerbate views which are not very well grounded in reality in the first instance, historically or legally, on either side of unfortunate racial divides through time.
No one who has been alive since roughly the mid-1950's had anything at all to do with the institution of slavery or can therefore be held in the least accountable for it, no matter their ancestry. Otherwise, we are condemned in perpetuity to live in the grip of the past, with no progress to be made by anyone, perpetual action and reaction holding the society in stasis or semi-stasis. Slavery is a part of the country's history from which we must learn and not try to use to divide humanity from one another. There are many forms of slavery other than the American former peculiar institution, in many lands through time, with no society in the world—including African tribes, some of whom enslaved other tribes, some of whom aided the slavers for bounty in capture of their charges—, left wholly innocent in its dark past when ownership of human beings, before the age of farm machinery in agrarian-based economic systems, was deemed a practical solution to enable clothing or feeding of vast numbers of people, including, in the American antebellum context, the residents of the North, from the cotton plantations of the South. No one, of any race, escapes blame for that system in the past. There were many slave-owners in the North who were absentee owners, leaving the slaves in the charge of an overseer, often physically cruel, that practice of absenteeism being more the norm than the exception in the Deep South where the climate was not hospitable in the days before air conditioning. (Cf. Impending Crisis of the South, by Hinton Helper, 1857, and its associated subsequently published supporting statistical Compendium, the Crisis having been distributed by the Republican Party in the 1860 election to support the election of Abraham Lincoln)
But no one today can be held the least bit accountable for slavery except in the realm of insanity. Reaction would seek to hold every descendant of any murderer or rapist accountable today for that act, though it happened 160 years ago and more. That would obviously be ludicrous. It is equally ludicrous to try to hold anyone, individually or collectively, responsible today for slavery. But we do not intend for this to be any probing analysis of slavery, rather only to seek reason in adjudging the past and its personages rather than taking precipitous action which, in twenty years time, will seem rather short-sighted, silly and embarrassing. No one considers building names or statues in the first place, save people with too much time on their hands.
As we have previously stated, we
attended law school at UNC for three years and never once even knew
for certain how to pronounce the name on the 1968 building, Van
Hecke-Wettach, let alone who they were or whether it was just one
person. And had we asked anyone on campus where Van Hecke-Wettach
was, the inevitable response then, as no doubt now, would be, "Who?
Do you know
Irony, indeed, Mr. McKnight.
"Arms Alone Won't Do the Job" indicates that El Salvador was the smallest country in Latin America, sharing the southeastern border of pro-Communist Guatemala, which had just suspended its civil liberties, after receiving a large shipment of arms from Communist Poland. No one, however, was worried about a Communist coup in El Salvador, thanks to the U.S. providing Point Four technical assistance, the program initiated by President Truman, which had become a reality in El Salvador.
Ed Leahy of the Chicago Daily News had toured the country recently, finding that Point Four assistance was being gratefully received.
The technicians had introduced new varieties of sugarcane, after noting that a virus was destroying the native cane, such that now El Salvador produced enough sugar for its own consumption and some for export. The most important improvement had been in its health program, including decontamination of water supplies, improvement of the nursing profession, and an extensive anti-tuberculosis program. The annual U.S. budget for the work was $850,000, and the local governments put several times that amount into the program on the basis of guidance from U.S. advisers.
It indicates that there was not much being reported about Point Four work in other countries anymore because economic aid had been de-emphasized. Arms were being sent to countries which promised to use them to fight Communists, but arms did not improve depressed living standards or ease hunger, conditions which helped to make Communism thrive among impoverished people.
The war against military Communism would never be successful, it ventures, unless it were accompanied by a war against hunger, and so it advises impressing upon the American people and the Government, which tended to minimize the value of economic and technical aid, the Point Four lesson in El Salvador.
A piece from the Baytown (Tex.) Sun, titled "An Old Turkish Custom", indicates that there was plentiful copy in magazines and programs on television imparting information about Turkey, reminding the writer of an incident which had happened a couple of years earlier in that country while the writer was visiting. They had gone into the country from Istanbul to visit some farm lands, encountering rough roads, finally reaching a small farm where they encountered an old Turk, to whom they spoke through an interpreter, asking him why the Turkish people did not get together and campaign for better roads to make it easier for them to get their products to market. The old Turk was silent for a few seconds and then replied that if they got better roads so that they could get out, then the Government could use those same roads to get in.
That sounds like one of those stupid subliminal arguments being made for states' rights. But maybe it's just an innocent story about an old Turkish custom. We are naturally suspicious, as it derives from Texas.
If you are tired of us knocking Texas, then why don't you Texans grow up and change, adopt to the 21st century, rather than trying to adhere to the 19th. We are speaking of the voting majorities in the decades since the 1960's, as we are well aware that for many decades there have been progressive forces at work within the state of Texas.
Drew Pearson discusses the breach between the U.S. and Britain, that the beginning of the end of the alliance had taken place at the Bermuda Conference the prior December between the President and Prime Minister Churchill, the latter having suggested initially a Big Three conference with Soviet Premier Georgi Malenkov, but the President having demurred. The Prime Minister persisted, saying that the world was at a point where it would go forward toward war or create a peace. But the President still refused. As a compromise, it was agreed that they would meet with French Premier Joseph Laniel in Bermuda to discuss preliminary problems which might lead later to inclusion of Premier Malenkov. They then met in Bermuda, but after three days, the President departed to address the U.N. regarding his atomic energy pooling proposal.
Mr. Churchill was left dejected. He later discovered that the President had planned the U.N. speech in advance to break up the Bermuda Conference. The U.N. speech had gone over well, but such a technique should not have been used, suggests Mr. Pearson, against an old friend as Mr. Churchill, who had planned the Conference as a crowning achievement of his long career. He had been bitter since that time and had, as a consequence, stymied the U.S. on every move proposed regarding Indo-China, reversing Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden on various commitments for Southeast Asian cooperation, not permitting the British Ambassador to the U.S. to discuss the proposed SEATO, as sought by Secretary of State Dulles.
Doris Fleeson indicates that the hearings of the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy demonstrated a prevailing anxiety among those responsible for oversight of atomic energy research. Committee chairman Sterling Cole insisted that a majority of the Atomic Energy Commission had the power to treat one or two of their colleagues as security risks. The five members of the AEC were appointed by the President after a full security check, then confirmed by the Senate, but the present group was at odds regarding the powers of the chairman, Admiral Lewis Strauss, with the result that commissioner Thomas Murray had proposed an amendment to the new AEC legislation, whereby all members of the advisory committee would have equal authority and responsibility and full access to all information relating to the performance of that authority and responsibility, designed to offset language in the new act which would designate the chairman as "the principal officer".
Mr. Cole believed that the latter phrase did not mean much but was unwilling to drop it, out of concern that it would be construed as a reflection on Admiral Strauss. He had, however, indicated his willingness to accept part of Mr. Murray's suggestion insofar as all members having equal responsibility and authority, but did not favor inclusion of the phrase regarding full access to all information. He believed that a committee majority ought have the ability in the future to restrict such access in a particular limited field and wanted therefore to leave it in the hands of the majority of the Commission to determine the extent to which members of the Commission would have access. (Ms. Fleeson is not distinguishing between the "commission", referring to the AEC proper, and the "committee", which refers to an advisory committee to the Commission, as previously explained by the Alsops in a recent column.)
Mr. Murray was upset that Mr. Cole believed there might be an occasion when a majority of the Commission might restrict access to information to a member of the Commission. Thus the three members who were against providing the chairman with such new power, Mr. Murray, Eugene Zuckert and Dr. Henry Smyth, each of whom believed that they were being left out of important decisions, were not satisfied. All three were appointees of former President Truman, but Mr. Zuckert was retiring on June 30, opening the way for the President to appoint another commissioner who might then form a 3 to 2 majority in support of chairman Strauss.
The President had been angrily defensive of Admiral Strauss, and the newest commissioner, Joseph Campbell, a former associate of the President at Columbia University, was siding with the chairman in the present controversy.
She indicates that others whose tempers were aroused by the exchanges included the atomic scientists, who complained that disagreement was being equated with being a security risk.
The Congressional Quarterly indicates that the Federal Housing Administration, which had come into existence in 1934 as an "experimental venture", had developed into a multi-billion dollar Government insurance enterprise and recently had drawn attention from investigators. Critics said that the insurance methods and standards of FHA might not have kept pace with its financial expansion. The home repair loan program was one of two programs currently being investigated for alleged abuses, the other being "Section 608", through which the FHA insured mortgage loans to finance construction of large-scale emergency rental projects intended primarily for veterans, a program which had expired in 1950. The latter program had accounted for about 75 percent of all project mortgages insured by the FHA. A third FHA program which might be investigated would be the home mortgage program, under which the FHA mainly insured mortgage loans on from one to four-family dwellings.
The piece provides a table of all programs, home mortgages, project mortgages and improvement loans by millions of dollars in North Carolina, compared to the same programs in billions of dollars across the whole country.
A letter writer from Spartanburg, S.C, comments on the Brown v. Board of Education decision, saying he was gratified that most of the letters to the editor appeared to favor retention of segregation.
You're an idiot.
A letter writer finds some of the things being written in response to Brown to be ridiculous, such as one writer who said he would cancel his subscription to the newspaper because an editorial had counseled calm, patient deliberation on how to respond to the decision. He then lapses into the Garden of Eden story.
A letter writer finds that God "prefixed the laws of segregation a long time ago. Black men, white men, red men, and yellow men." He finds the birds and beasts maintaining segregation.
Whatever you say. What was the prefix? Crypto-?
A letter writer from Morganton says that he was born in Michigan of white parents, and they had moved to Virginia in 1887 when he was nine months old and then he had lived in that state and North Carolina after age three. He says that they had settled among the "First Families of Virginia", "unreconstructed rebs, 'niggers,' and 'poor white trash.'" Despite being Yankees, they had made friends. Because they were ignorant and fell into the Southern way, he was almost grown before he realized that a "'nigger' was a member of the Negro race, and would have as much pride in that fact as I could because I was of the white race." He also did not know he was a "'damn Yankee'" until he started school, but learned fast. One of his playmates was a black boy, who never taught anything bad, an experience he continued to have into adulthood, working around black farm laborers and in a saw mill which he ran. The black men were always willing to respond to reasonable requests, when not all of the whites were. He wonders whether slavery gave whites the right now to tell blacks what to do. He wonders where some of the letters written to the newspaper, along with his own, would stand in comparison to those of outstanding black people such as Dr. Ralph Bunche. To those who were in favor of continued segregation, he recommends the recent letter of a man who said that mixing of the races was not the fault of black people.
A letter writer thanks the Good Samaritan Hospital for kindness and courtesy extended to her while she was a patient there.
A letter writer thanks the Park & Recreation Commission for maintaining the fine Double Oaks Swimming Pool where he had worked for two summers, departing to work at a black swimming pool in Gastonia.
Links-Date — Links-Subj.