The Charlotte News

Tuesday, December 6, 1955


Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that Secretary of State Dulles this date criticized sharply Soviet leaders for what he said was stirring up an atmosphere of hatred and prejudice against the West during their visit to Asia, telling a press conference that remarks by Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin and Communist Party Secretary Nikita Khrushchev appeared to be a move to encourage use of force by India against the Portuguese colony of Goa. Presently, the Soviet leaders were in Burma, and the Secretary said that there was no appearance of a desire to reduce tensions with the West, and that the stance had damaged what remained of the friendlier East-West relations which had developed out of the Big Four summit conference of the prior July. Mr. Dulles said that the U.S. wanted both India and Portugal to settle their dispute regarding Goa peacefully, without resort to force, and that India's Prime Minister Nehru shared that view. He said that a statement he had issued the previous Friday, arousing angry reaction in India, had been designed to reduce the emotionalism built up by Russia's leaders with their comments on Goa, which he believed were designed to create an atmosphere to provoke use of force in that dispute and inject prejudice and hatred into the controversy.

In Gettysburg, Pa., the President and top military and budget advisers had reached virtually their final agreement this date on the 1956-57 defense budget, estimated at around 34.5 billion dollars, the same as the current budget. The decision did not appear to encourage hope that the Administration could seek a substantial tax reduction during the coming session of Congress, with Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson having told a reporter, after a 90 minute conference with the President and the Budget Bureau director Rowland Hughes, that no final figure had been set for defense spending in the next fiscal year, but that he expected no major change from the current spending level, that it might possibly even be a little higher. The Pentagon comptroller, W. J. McNeil, said that the meeting had just about settled the final defense budget, and that he and Mr. Wilson did not plan any further meetings with the President before the budget estimates were put into final form.

In New York, Secretary of Labor James Mitchell said this date, in an address to the merged AFL-CIO convention, that labor had both the duty and responsibility to speak out with a "loud and clear" voice in politics, but that he anticipated labor supporting Republican Party policies rather than those of the Democrats. Similar to the address delivered via closed telephone circuit from Gettysburg the previous night by the President, the Secretary said that labor unions had a right to deal in political issues. The President had said that the expression of the rights of minorities in unions had to be scrupulously protected and that those views had to be accurately reflected. Both the President and the Secretary appeared to be answering in part the expressed fears of some Republicans, led by Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, that unions were taking too much of a role in politics, and also reflected the desire of the Republican Party to try to woo labor from support of Democrats. In another speech this date to the convention, Governor Averell Harriman of New York said that more, not less, participation by working men and women in American political affairs was needed, that there was a "glorious opportunity" to increase national production by 50 percent during the ensuing decade and thereby improve living conditions, but that to obtain that expansion, there had to be wise and progressive policies, and that it was up to labor to make its voice heard to ensure those policies.

General Motors president Harlow Curtice had announced this date that the corporation was immediately extending its sales agreements with its retail dealers from one year to five years. A Senate Judiciary antitrust and monopoly subcommittee resumed its public hearings this date on G.M. operations, in response to dealer complaints registered against the firm. Mr. Curtice said that the 17,000 G.M. retail dealers throughout the country were receiving telegrams from the company regarding the policy change. The one-year dealership agreements had been previously criticized as one-sided by former and present G.M. dealers in testimony at the hearings. Mr. Curtice said that the public had been "grossly misinformed by widespread publicity given to the misleading statements made by witnesses, including the few complaining dealers who have appeared before this committee." He said that the longer-term sales agreements were decided on because of the misunderstanding and possible damage to G.M. good will.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this date on the constitutionality of a law aimed at compelling witnesses to testify in national security cases under a grant of immunity from prosecution, arising in the case of William Ludwig Ullman, a former Air Force major and one time Treasury employee who had been involved in a Congressional investigation of alleged Communist spy activity in the Government, having been convicted of contempt of court and given a six-month jail sentence the previous March after he had twice refused to testify before a New York Federal grand jury, despite the fact that the Federal judge had granted him immunity from prosecution in connection with anything he might divulge, the grand jury having been investigating wartime espionage in Washington. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York had unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the immunity law and affirmed the conviction and sentence, with Mr. Ullman, in the meantime, remaining free on a $5,000 appellate bond. The immunity law applied to witnesses appearing before grand juries, the courts and Congressional committees, providing that when a witness was reluctant to testify on the basis of the potential for self-incrimination, he could be directed to testify with immunity from prosecution resulting from his statements, and that continued refusal, thereafter, could result in contempt proceedings. The Court would hold 7 to 2 the following March, in an opinion delivered by Justice Felix Frankfurter, that the law was Constitutional and the conviction thus valid, with Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo Black dissenting on either the basis that the immunity statute did not grant complete immunity from other penalties, such as loss of a passport or a government job, following from an admission or, alternatively, that the Fifth Amendment right to silence was beyond the reach of Congress to disturb, it being not a qualified right.

In Montgomery, Ala., the boycott of the municipal buses, following the arrest and conviction of Rosa Parks for refusing the prior Thursday to give up her seat on a municipal bus at the direction of the driver, to accommodate white passengers, was continuing and had been 85 percent effective the previous day at its inception, showing signs of continuing beyond this date. The manager of the bus company had reported to police that a small caliber rifle bullet had struck the rear of a bus the previous night in a black district. A hymn-singing black crowd, estimated by police at 5,000, had shouted approval the previous night when spokesmen—including the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Rev. Ralph D. Abernathy, though neither mentioned by name in the story—urged them to continue the boycott in protest of the segregated transportation facilities of the city.

Roger D. Greene of the Associated Press reports from Washington on a Congressional probe of the problem of illicit drugs in the country, indicating that Federal agents had reason to suspect a smiling 64-year old operator of a flower shop in San Francisco's Chinatown of peddling heroin, but did not know initially how he had been doing it. Treasury agents had watched the man delicately moving among his flowers, observing that his customers were few and that none were known addicts or the type to arouse suspicion. The shop owner knew that he was being watched, as he nodded and smiled at the agents as they passed his shop, and occasionally, in plain view of the agents, wrapped an expensive orchid corsage or a dozen roses and summoned a commercial messenger to deliver the package. Agents had stopped the messengers routinely and searched them, finding, however, nothing. One morning, as fog had swirled through Chinatown, the agents had gone through the routine of intercepting a messenger and examining the box of flowers, finding nothing initially but roses, until a few tiny flecks of white powder had spilled down the stem of one of the roses, attached to the stem of which had been a thin green capsule. The agent wet his finger and touched it to the powder, tasted it and grimaced, saying that it was pure heroin. They had found the evidence they needed to arrest the shop owner and eight of his confederates engaged in a multi-million dollar narcotics ring which had been smuggling heroin into the U.S. from Communist China. Mr. Greene indicates that agents of the Federal Narcotics Bureau and the U.S. Customs Service shared the almost impossible task of trying to keep narcotics out of the country. Query whether the agents had sufficient probable cause to conduct the search, not possible to determine from the scant facts related.

In Wake Forest, N.C., some 400 to 500 torch-bearing Wake Forest College students had demonstrated for about 90 minutes the previous night and had hung the school president, Harold W. Tribble, in effigy, shouting, "Down with Tribble," in protest of reports of a move to de-emphasize athletics at the school. Dr. Tribble assured the group that there definitely had been no effort to de-emphasize athletics. He said that he, personally, favored the retention of football coach Tom Rogers, athletic director Pat Preston and the entire athletics staff, specifically mentioning baseball coach Taylor Sanford, whose team had won the NCAA championship the previous summer, and basketball coach Murray Greason. The resignations of Mr. Rogers and Mr. Preston had been announced by the College the previous Saturday. (The football team had a record of 5-4-1 during the current season, but had been 2-7-1 the prior season, 3-6-1 in 1953, 5-4-1 in 1952 and 6-4 in 1951, the first season under coach Rogers, who had succeeded coach Peahead Walker, whose last team had finished 6-1-2. The first season of the ACC had been in 1953, a conference in which the Demon Deacons would have trouble competing for some time to come, including their memorable four seasons between 1960 and 1963 under coach Billy Hildebrand, during which Wake Forest would win a total of seven games, four of which having occurred in 1961, before going 1-19 during his final two seasons, winning his penultimate game by a point against the University of South Carolina, prompting the traditional coating of trees in toilet paper on the Winston-Salem campus in mock celebration of the end of the two-season drought. Mr. Hildebrand, who was hung in effigy on numerous occasions during that stretch, had then entered the chicken franchise business, if we recall correctly. It was, incidentally, during that last season that we heard a Wake Forest fan, slightly in his cups, yell out during the game against UNC in Winston-Salem, "Piccolo, you can't run!" or perhaps somewhat more colorful words to that effect, in reference to halfback Brian Piccolo, then in his second season for Wake Forest. We can be mockish, as UNC in those days, with the exception of 1963, was enjoying only marginally greater success, utilizing the hapless Deacons as the benchmark below whom they could not fall.) Leaders of the group of protesters were believed to be forming a committee to confer with Dr. Tribble, and the latter said that he would be glad to see them and pass along their report to the Board of Trustees. The college newspaper, Old Gold and Black, which published every Monday, planned to publish an extra edition this date regarding the demonstration. The story indicates that sports editor Bob Quincy discussed the explosive situation and general trend of athletics at Wake Forest in his column on page 2-B this date.

A story indicates that extreme care should be taken in the use of wiring for Christmas tree lights and decorative lighting outside, according to the Charlotte City electrical inspector, that lights and wiring stored since the previous Christmas ought be carefully inspected for broken places in insulation or sockets. He said that extension cords should bear the label of the Underwriters Laboratories and that cords should never be strung across the floor where they would be stepped on, or run through door jambs where they might get wet, or placed near radiators or other heating units, where they could melt. Outdoor lighting should only employ equipment designed for outside use and lamp sockets ought be mounted downwards so that rain and snow could not leak into the sockets, that outdoor extension cords should be sheathed in rubber with the UL label for outdoor usage. Asbestos-insulated cords for heating appliances, he advised, should never be used outdoors or in damp locations. (Likewise, one should never take an asbestos-insulated cord into the house at all, unless one wishes to develop, in time, asbestosis.)

Another story indicates that a local pet shop operator in Charlotte this date had expressed the belief that a part of the public might have become unduly alarmed by the recent news stories concerning the rare bird disease, psittacosis, quoting statistics showing that during the previous 24 years, only 458 cases had been found among humans in the U.S. The previous Saturday, a story had appeared in The News about a stray green parakeet which health authorities believed had transmitted the disease to four people of a family who had kept the parakeet before it escaped. The shop owner quoted from Parrots and Parrot-Like Birds, by the Duke of Bedford, a bird authority, that since 1930 in the U.S., only 14 cases of psittacosis had been attributed to parrots, 172 to parakeets and 182 to other domestic birds. The shop owner said that it made the odds about one in a million that a bird would be infected and that if he had the slightest doubt, he would not handle them in his store. He said that according to bird authorities, psittacosis developed from overcrowded, unhealthy conditions under which the birds might be kept. He strongly advised that people not accept transient birds, such as the one in the instant case which had flown into the pharmacy of the original family who had the bird, before it was given to the family's maid, where the disease began developing. He also asked that people purchasing parakeets insist on domestically-raised birds from an aviary and that they inspect the quarters where the birds were kept before they purchased them. We think we have it figured—what happened, we mean.

In Asahikawa, Japan, the temperature had dropped sharply overnight and had frozen every bottle of beer and sake in the town, causing them to burst.

On the editorial page, "The Scarecrow: Verbal Hide & Seek" suggests that residents of the city, proud of its new look of progress, deserved to know how much longer they had to put up with its principal eyesore, the Southern Railway passenger station, that patience was wearing thin, exacerbated by the evasiveness recently by railroad officials whenever the subject was raised, continued the previous day when the Railway's chief engineer had visited Charlotte and engaged in the same old verbal hide and seek.

It indicates that the present station was a decaying "scarecrow" of a building, scarring the city landscape as well as Southern's reputation. The station was not only inadequate in appearance but also in its equipment, offering rail travelers their first dismal glimpse of the city. Recently, the station was in danger literally of falling down, after a truck had rammed one of the columns of the building, with the replacement of the column having been described in the press as the first major improvement to the station in many years.

It concludes that whatever the city did regarding the raising of tracks which crossed midtown streets, a new passenger station was needed at once.

"The Sugar Bowl and Sugar Creek" comments on the statements made by Georgia Governor Marvin Griffin, urging the Georgia University system to disallow Georgia colleges from participation in sporting events against opponents with black members of their teams, having been overruled the previous day by the Georgia University system Board of Regents, allowing Georgia Tech to participate against the University of Pittsburgh in the upcoming Sugar Bowl on January 2, despite the fact that Pittsburgh had a sole black member of its football team.

It indicates that as soon as the Governor had issued his statement, implying that Georgia Tech should be prevented from playing in the Sugar Bowl, he said that the Board of Regents had enough sense to make a decision on the matter, and then after the Board's decision, had decided to let it go.

It finds that the Governor's political heritage came from Tom Watson, the "race-baiting father of RFD", through Eugene Talmadge, "race-baiting Sage of Sugar Creek", and, finally through Herman Talmadge, the latter's "race-baiting son". The elder Talmadge had never given the Board credit for having any sense, when he had told the Regents to fire a university president and some professors whom he accused of advocating racial coeducation during the 1940's, and after the Board had refused to do so without proof, had fired the dissenters on the Board and appointed a new Board. Soon, his actions resulted in ten Georgia colleges, including Georgia Tech and the University of Georgia, being removed from the list of accredited colleges and universities, prompting students to riot, ring doorbells and denounce Governor Talmadge. So it regards with no surprise the fact that Herman Talmadge had wanted nothing to do with Governor Griffin's recent statements.

It concludes that Georgia Tech would be playing in the Sugar Bowl but that there would not be any game for folks in "Shakerag, Rising Fawn or Social Circle", that "Old Marv" talked a good game but would not play it.

"Hidden Light" finds that the Mint Museum Drama Guild's performance of Antigone ought to have been appreciated by more residents of the city, as the cast had known what the play was about, having presented its eternal arguments in a tidy package fitting the playwright's observation that "tragedy is clean, it is firm, it is flawless … it has nothing to do with melodrama—with wicked villains, persecuted maidens, avengers, gleams of hope and eleventh-hour repentances."

It finds that good tragedy shed light and shaped perspective, and it wishes the Drama Guild's light were not so well hidden by its cramped quarters, suggests that some melodramatic press agentry might help.

"Diplomatic Coquetry—A La Luce" tells of Leo Disher of Winston-Salem having been slated to become the principal speechwriter for U.S. Ambassador to Italy Clare Boothe Luce, according to the U.S. Information Service, but that Ambassador Luce had stated that both she and the American taxpayers would not stand for employment of a ghostwriter for an ambassador who had enjoyed a fairly successful career as a writer.

The piece indicates that the taxpayers paid for ghostwriters for every public official, including the President, and so it doubts that Mr. Disher would set off tax riots in Rome, Ga., or in Rome, N.Y., let alone in Italy.

It decides to complete Mrs. Luce's literary record, indicating that she had been associate editor of Vogue and Vanity Fair, and had written a newspaper column and two books, Stuffed Shirts, published in 1933, and Europe in the Spring, published in 1940. Her plays included Abide with Me, The Women, both published in 1937, Kiss the Boys Goodbye, of 1938, and Margin for Error, the following year. She had also banned the film "The Blackboard Jungle" from the Venice Film Festival during the current year.

It concludes that it did not mind a public official blowing her own horn occasionally, but could not stand mere tooting.

A piece by H. Clay Ferree of the Winston-Salem Journal & Sentinel, titled "Mountain Dialect", tells of radio, television and consolidated schools having a major impact on the elimination of the mountain patois, that one could still hear occasionally in the hills someone say "ain't" or "thar", "saft" for "soft", "our'n" for "ours" (actually, "our own"), "gwine" for "going". But younger, better educated generations were gradually coming to speak more like the children of New York, Detroit, San Francisco and Boston, and even where the dialect lingered, it was being alloyed with the argot of megalopolis.

Lena Mearle Shull, chairman of the Poetry Council of North Carolina, was keenly interested in preserving not only the dialect but the character patterns, life philosophy, religious fervor and way of life of Southern mountain people. In her latest book of poems, Fire on the Mountain, the Asheville author had presented a unique collection of verse in dialect dealing with customs, superstition and faith. He provides an example: "Yah eat poke?/ Greens is made by the Good Lord!/ Reckon nothin' is better/ Cooked along a ham bone…/ … Greens now./ That's sumpthin'!/ Pull up a cheer,/ Take a load offen yer feet;/ Rest yer hat a mite;/ You're gonna have yuh a square meal/ Whut puts marrer in yer bones;/ You eat poke?"

Mrs. Shull used the technique only rarely, believing that such treatment always distorted and tended to soften the rugged directness of the mountain people's conversation. Her collection contained more than 50 monologues on practically every phase of life among families who still lived in the isolated valleys of the Blue Ridge, the Great Smokies and the Ozarks.

Mr. Ferree provides several other words and phrases utilized in the book, which he regards as "Chaucerian" terms, that while most of the words and phrases appeared properly used, some did not apply to the North Carolina hill country usage, citing as example "crick" for "creek", never heard in the western hills. He regards those shortcomings as minor and that on the whole, Mrs. Shull had performed a distinctive cultural service in catching and preserving in her verse the peculiar idiom of the highland people, while also portraying with clear, sympathetic insight the character which gave such people an uplifting and inspiring quality.

Drew Pearson tells of a lengthy backstage hassle having taken place between two top appointees of the President regarding whether to pay Dixon-Yates approximately 5.5 million dollars for their claimed out-of-pocket expenses after the Government cancellation of the contract, with Atomic Energy Commission chairman, Admiral Lewis Strauss, wanting it paid. The Admiral had been the man who had sold the Administration on the contract and had rammed it through, despite the AEC having voted against it. But Comptroller General Joseph Campbell, appointed by the President, had rejected it, resulting in Admiral Strauss and Mr. Campbell haggling for some time, with Mr. Campbell standing pat, even though he had once voted for the Dixon-Yates contract when he had been a member of the AEC. As a result, Admiral Strauss had said publicly that the Government would not compensate Dixon-Yates after the contract was canceled.

Mr. Campbell opposed it because of two criminal conspiracy cases lurking in the background, the first concerning the suppression of a rival bid against Dixon-Yates from the Hanover National Bank. But when the bank had sought to hire a prominent engineering firm to work out plans for the project, the engineering firm said that they had been pressured not to cooperate. Suppression of competition in making Government bids was a violation of the law. The second case involved Adolphe Wenzell's presence inside the Budget Bureau which was covered up—as further considered below by the Alsops. Mr. Pearson regards Mr. Wenzell's position as possibly a more flagrant conflict of interest than that of former Air Force Secretary Harold Talbott or that of Buildings administrator Peter Strobel, both of whom had resigned.

Joseph & Stewart Alsop indicate that two of the President's principal aides, Budget Bureau director Rowland Hughes and AEC chairman Lewis Strauss, might be in serious trouble, resulting from the AEC ruling that Boston banker Mr. Wenzell had been involved in a conflict of interest when he served as Budget Bureau consultant in the Dixon-Yates deal. Having such a conflict of interest was potentially indictable criminally under Federal law. But there was also a problem with sworn testimony of Admiral Strauss and Mr. Wenzell, being in direct conflict and thus potentially indictable as perjury, in addition to which there had been an attempt to conceal essential facts, not only from the public, but as well from the President, not indictable, but still a serious political offense.

The facts were that testimony before a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, had established that Mr. Wenzell had played a role in negotiating the AEC's Dixon-Yates contract, and had also served as an official of the First Boston Corp., which had acted as financial agent in the Dixon-Yates deal. When that deal had been finally canceled, after the City of Memphis undertook to provide the shortfall in energy which was being devoted to atomic plants, the original reason for the Dixon-Yates deal, to have the private firm supply the shortfall, the Government had to pay a cancellation fee estimated to be about three million dollars. The contract, however, was illegal if the charge of conflict of interest against Mr. Wenzell was valid, eliminating the cancellation fee. The matter had been referred to the AEC's legal department where a junior AEC lawyer studied the case and wrote an opinion that a conflict of interest had clearly been involved and that the contract was therefore illegal.

But the previous July, the AEC general counsel had testified that the Dixon-Yates contract was "legal and binding", and so the opinion by the junior lawyer was so inconvenient that Admiral Strauss, according to information received by the Kefauver subcommittee, had sent for the young lawyer's security file, presumably on the grounds that writing such an opinion was potentially subversive.

In the meantime, Senators Kefauver and Clinton Anderson had become aware of the young lawyer's opinion and that became known to Admiral Strauss, and the general counsel for the AEC hurriedly reversed his previous opinion and ruled that Mr. Wenzell had been involved in a conflict of interest. The implications of the ruling were far-reaching, as both the Kefauver subcommittee and the Dixon-Yates advocates were certain to expound on the matter at length, with each side trying to prove that Mr. Hughes and Admiral Strauss were completely aware of Mr. Wenzell's dual role during the time when the contract was being negotiated.

Mr. Wenzell had testified that he had become worried about his position and had consulted Mr. Hughes about it, and the Alsops indicate that as of the current writing, it was not known what position Mr. Hughes had taken. But it was known that Mr. Wenzell continued to serve as a consultant on the Dixon-Yates contract after his talk with Mr. Hughes.

Mr. Wenzell had also testified the previous July that he had explained to Admiral Strauss his work at the Budget Bureau, but the Admiral had testified that he did not know that Mr. Wenzell was a Bureau consultant and thought that he was representing the First Boston Corp., advising on the availability and cost of financing of the contract. Thus, there was a direct conflict in the testimony.

The previous year, the President had said that all of the facts on the Dixon-Yates contract were publicly available, at which point the Budget Bureau and the AEC had hurriedly drawn up fact sheets, and when Mr. Wenzell's name appeared in them, previously unknown to the public, the Bureau asked the AEC to eliminate it. An attempt had been made to explain that omission on the basis that Mr. Wenzell had played no important role in the negotiations of the contract. But the AEC general counsel had ruled that Mr. Wenzell, while having a conflicting private interest, had acted as one of the principal advisers of the Government in the negotiation of the contract.

The facts had also been consistently misrepresented to the President, for example, when he had said that Mr. Wenzell had never worked on the Dixon-Yates contract.

The Alsops conclude that it had been a messy business, messier because Mr. Wenzell, an outspoken man with an honorable personal history, but a "business lamb among the Washington wolves," was likely to be the only fall guy in the end.

Marquis Childs, writing from Calcutta, indicates that an observer passing through India who presumed to pass final judgments had to be brash, as there was only one thing which appeared certain, perhaps even that an illusion, that the Indian people were going somewhere and bound to bring about, by one means or another, change to a part of the world which had for long lived in the frame of ancient tradition and custom. That process had been visible in the outpouring of greetings for Communist Party Secretary Nikita Khrushchev and Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin as they moved recently from one part of India to another.

He indicates that few people had any clear idea of who the two men were, but understood that for India, for their province or city, it was an honor for them to be present, of which they were proud. From the Western perspective, such an outpouring was merely a political show which would soon be forgotten. But in a more serious vein, the performance in every corner of India had the effect of identifying Russia as a friend of the Indian people ready to share with them, as Mr. Khrushchev had put it, the last crust of bread, and also had given the Communist Party respectability and a status it had never enjoyed before in India.

The average Indian also exhibited a kind of satisfaction that it constituted revenge against the West for all of its snubs and slights, oppressions and scorns of the past, including most recently, that which was perceived as an affront when the American pact providing arms for Pakistan had been formed. The present danger appeared to Mr. Childs to be that the West, and particularly the U.S., might react in the same way, that if India did not need the U.S., then the U.S. did not need India, and if that should happen, it would be a tragedy for both India and the U.S. The need for the countries to work together was as great at present as it had ever been, for each country.

One judgment was that it was the beginning of the end, with India sliding toward at least an alliance with Russia, if not Communism. But he regards it as a too easy judgment, an admission of defeat that the West could not afford.

Edith Wharton, writing in French Ways and Their Meaning, tells of having had a conversation with Dean Howells regarding American theatrical tastes demanding that the dramatist wind up his play with the happy-ever-after of fairy tales, with Ms. Wharton having said in response that it did not imply a preference for comedy but, on the contrary, that American audiences wanted to be harrowed and even slightly shocked from 8:00 to 10:30, and then reassured before 11:00. Mr. Howells had agreed that it was so, that the American public wanted a tragedy with a happy ending.

She concludes that what he had said of the American theater was true of the whole American attitude toward life.

A letter writer suggests that democracy was a process from a condition which presently existed to one hoped for, inherently carrying the aspirations and concepts of the people, that therefore the present pre-election "hubbub" in America was normal and served as a safety valve for public sentiment, that making a decision in the coming election year without discussion would be dangerous to individual rights and liberties. He finds that the press stimulation of the idea that the President was popular with the people generated from sympathy for a sick man, when the fact was that he was aligned with big business, a divergence from the facts based on ownership of the press in large part by the financial aristocracy and the fact that the press, outside of the organized political parties, was the most potent force in forming political opinion. He regards it as axiomatic in the U.S. that a first-term President could be nominated for a second term merely by his own appointees, that it was a fallacy in the democratic system but one which was accepted and established by practice in both parties. He concludes that rather than have a decision at the present time as to who would run for the presidency in 1956, it would be good to see coherency in the nation's foreign policy and what the Government would do to stem inflation.

A letter from the local director of civil defense expresses gratitude to the newspaper for its cooperation in helping it to conduct the recent civil defense test, that the cooperation had resulted in increased response on the part of the public.

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.