The Charlotte News

Thursday, May 26, 1955


Site Ed. Note: The front page reports from Udall, Kansas, that the spring's most devastating tornadoes had ripped through 14 Kansas and Oklahoma communities the previous night, leaving 77 persons dead, injuries to an estimated 700 others, and property damage estimated in the millions, with the greatest damage done to Udall, a community of 750 persons where at least 55 had died and about 100 others injured, and Blackwell, in northern Oklahoma, a town of 10,000 where 15 had died and some 500 others injured, 80 miles from Udall, which had been virtually destroyed. A twister had killed two others at Sweetwater in western Oklahoma, and lightning had struck and killed two others in Oklahoma. The twisters had also hit Texas but had apparently caused no deaths.

Senator John McClellan of Arkansas said this date that a heart attack suffered by a key witness the previous night, after appearing before the Senate Investigations subcommittee, had forced a postponement after this date of an inquiry into alleged graft in the purchase of uniforms for the armed forces through the Quartermaster Corps. The witness, a New York manufacturer, had already provided testimony that he furnished nearly $7,000 which he understood an associate would use to pay off Government employees to procure clothing contracts for his firm. The man was scheduled to continue his testimony, necessitating the postponement. The previous day, a former Government contract administrator, Mella Hort, had accused the subcommittee's chief counsel, Robert F. Kennedy, brother of Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and also accused Carmine Bellino, a staff accountant, of trying to suborn from her false testimony regarding the date of a letter, making "alluring promises" to her for same. She acknowledged that she had said "goddamn" several times to both men when they had questioned her behind closed doors the previous Thursday and conceded that she feared disclosure of what Senator McClellan had referred to as "some things we haven't revealed", which the Senator regarded as the reason for her self-described "near hysteria" during the questioning by staff. He told newsmen that it was apparent that Mrs. Hort was not browbeaten, given the way that "she was cussing around". As recounted in somewhat fuller versions of the story appearing in other newspapers, Senator Sam J. Ervin of North Carolina, a member of the subcommittee, said that he believed Mrs. Hort had in fact browbeaten Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Bellino.

The White House this date denied that HEW Secretary Oveta Culp Hobby had resigned, with press secretary James Hagerty indicating that her husband was critically ill and that he could not say at present whether that illness would eventually force Mrs. Hobby to leave her post. The New York Herald Tribune had said this date that she had presented her resignation and that it was understood that the President had accepted it and that a replacement had already been selected, though the named replacement had indicated he had not heard anything about it. The New York Daily News reported that Clare Boothe Luce, Ambassador to Italy, was flying home to take over as the new HEW Secretary, but Ambassador Luce had denied that story from Rome. Secretary Hobby had recently been the target of criticism regarding the Department's handling of the supply and distribution of the Salk polio vaccine. The President had recently stated at a press conference that she had placed him on notice some months earlier that conditions might arise with regard to her husband's health which could cause her to have to leave the Government, and that in his opinion she had done a "magnificent job".

Julian Scheer of The News reports that no case of polio had been reported among the 197,800 first and second-grade students who had received the Salk vaccine in North Carolina. Likewise, no member of the families of any of the shot recipients had contracted the disease. The head of the Division of Epidemiology for the State Board of Health had told the newspaper this date that there was a slight decline in the number of polio cases reported to date during the year, compared to the previous year, with two fewer cases reported, and that none of the 25 reported cases in 1955 had received the vaccination, though it was not yet polio season. He had concluded from those facts that the vaccine being used in North Carolina was perfectly safe. He also said that it would be unreasonable to believe that no inoculated child would subsequently develop polio, as it was inevitable that some of those receiving the vaccine would already have been exposed to the disease. The Eli Lilly Co. had furnished the vaccine for North Carolina, a vaccine which was never under suspicion. He also said that there ought to be less polio in the state in 1955 than in 1954, following the usual cycle of polio incidence, with or without the vaccine, and that there ought be even less of it in 1956 than in 1955.

In London, voting was "fairly light" to "very heavy" in national elections being held this date, with the Conservatives, led by Prime Minister Anthony Eden, expected to continue their current majority in Commons. It was anticipated that approximately 28 million of the 35 million eligible voters would turn out for the election. The last public opinion polls predicted that 51 percent of the vote would go to the Conservatives and 47.5 percent to Labor, led by Clement Attlee, with the rest going to the Liberals and smaller parties. If those percentages held, the Conservatives would wind up with about an 80-seat majority, but many neutral observers believed that the polls were somewhat optimistic regarding the Conservatives, who presently had a 17-seat majority, a majority held since 1951.

Near San Angelo, Texas, a B-36 bomber had crashed in rugged ranch country, with 14 aboard. The plane was believed to have come from Walker Air Force Base in Roswell, N.M., and was still burning when an air search team reached the site, with the commander of the team indicating that no survivors were visible.

In Raleigh, the 1955 biennial session of the Legislature ended, winding up the longest session in state history, beating out the 1931 session by one day. The need to find revenue sources to balance the budget and to provide for additional school facilities for the increasing student enrollment had been among the troubling issues extending the session. The pay period for the legislators had ended on April 4 and so they had served for more than a month without pay, drawing praise for their service from the leadership of both houses.

On the editorial page, "Industrial Waste: Of Time & the River" recounts that the Greek philosopher Heraclitus had preached 2,400 years earlier that change was the essence of all things, stating that "no man can ever step in the same river twice", that "time, like the river, is an ineluctable dimension within which man moves as on a one-way street." It finds that the same principles applied to the City Council and the problem of industrial waste being injected into Sugar Creek in Charlotte, known popularly as "Sugaw Creek".

It counsels that the Council could not turn back on its one-way street regarding industrial waste, that it owed it to the people and its own conscience to complete the job it had set out to do without compromise or favor. Yet, a week before the five-year old industrial waste ordinance was set to go into effect June 1, the Council was being asked to make new concessions to the industries which would be impacted.

It recounts that Sugar Creek had been a smelly nuisance for years, at least partially caused by industrial waste which the ordinance sought to eliminate. The ordinance, however, had not been enforced and the dumping continued because the sewer system of the city would not handle the industrial waste. A new ordinance was passed which would enable the sewers to handle the waste after it was treated. The industrial concerns protested that they could not meet the conditions imposed by the law and the City promptly watered it down, ordering construction of a sewage disposal facility costing several million dollars to satisfy the needs of those industries. The disposal plant was scheduled to be completed and go into operation on June 1, at which point the ordinance would become effective. Yet, the industries concerned still claimed that they could not meet the requirements of the law and so appeared before the City Council the previous afternoon, seeking relief from the necessity of providing a holding tank to permit an even flow of waste into the sewage system, and a testing station to permit the City to make periodic tests of the chemical content of their waste.

The experts had indicated that the holding tank was necessary when there were large volumes of industrial waste coming into the sewage system to avoid injecting too much at once, beyond the capacity of the chemical processes of the sewage disposal plant. Otherwise, the multimillion dollar plant, built with the taxpayers' money, would be compromised.

Many industries were honestly trying to conform to the requirements of the ordinance, including laundries, and the duty of the City was clear with regard to those who did not plan to comply, that it should be enforced completely after having given the industries five years notice of the effective date of the ordinance. It states its agreement with the Jaycees who had passed a resolution which had been presented to the Council the previous day, stating that the effective date of the ordinance should not be postponed and that its provisions should not be diluted to the point of ineffectiveness.

"All Is Not Quiet in the Pentagon" indicates that Defense Secretary Charles E. Wilson had stated that the U.S. retained air superiority over the Russians, while, in the meantime, statements had issued from the lower ranks which suggested otherwise.

Questions had arisen as to whether the Administration was gambling military security against the quick balancing of the budget, while the public was being told that both goals could be achieved.

Retiring Army chief of staff General Matthew Ridgway had decided on retirement after futilely opposing reductions in the strength of the Army. On Wednesday, it was reported that the chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Robert Carney, would not be reappointed for another two-year term after he had recently become embroiled in a controversy regarding whether or not he had made statements which predicted that the Communist Chinese would attack by either mid-April or mid-May the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu, the Admiral insisting that he had only spoken of the Communists' capabilities by those dates, not predicting an attack. While the White House had stated that another appointment would have pushed him past retirement age, the same would be true of Admiral Arthur Radford, who was being appointed to a new two-year term as Joint Chiefs chairman.

It concludes that there was a considerable amount of disquiet among the top military figures at the Pentagon. The deputy chief of intelligence in the Continental Air Defense Command had said recently that the Russian Air Force was at least as good and possibly better than that of the U.S., and was then publicly rebuked by Air Force chief of staff, General Nathan Twining, who said that the deputy's statement was not true. Secretary Wilson's statement backed up General Twining and was supposed to allay concerns.

It is glad, therefore, that the Senate Armed Services Committee was preparing to review U.S. and Russian air strength, with its chairman, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, saying that the relative situation would be explored from guided missiles on down. It regards Senator Russell as a sober man who did not like riddles and it hopes that the Committee would make some sense out of what appeared to be the guessing game ongoing at the Pentagon.

"Fiends, Brothels and Typogremlins" indicates that despite its struggle for typographical perfection, "Mark Twain" had come out "Mark Train" recently in the newspaper, and the previous day, "small core" had come out "small CARE" in the process of writing an editorial regarding the General Assembly in Raleigh.

It recounts that a Los Angeles newspaper had printed a political advertisement which read, "You need a fiend in the City Council". The High Point Enterprise had recently editorialized about a brother organization, instead coming out "brothel". Another newspaper, referring to the acceptance speech of a petite movie star at the Academy Awards ceremony in March, had called it a "crude" speech instead of a cute one.

It recites three maxims regarding typographical errors, courtesy of James Thurber and Holt McPherson: "'Never count your boobies before they're hatched'; 'Don't get it right; get it written'; and 'Never laugh when your own foot is on the banana peel.'"

A piece from the Twin City Sentinel of Winston-Salem, titled "Perfume in the Rain", indicates that the rains of April were credited with bringing the blossoms of May, but wonders what April showers could match those of the previous weekend, following two weeks of dry weather. It finds the results very pleasant. "The country is a land of lovely odors the day after a May shower. The heat of summer is yet to come to turn the grain a golden brown and take its toll of the less strong flowers and greenery. All is fresh and beautiful in the month of May when spring has completed her work of bringing nature back to life and before summer begins to mature it."

Too bad that Messy Wawtas, the "Blossom" and company of fiends, the Foxy brain-children, do not understand or appreciate those facts, instead being intent on twisting and turning and spinning every single last thing which they possibly can against the current Administration and the current Democratic Congress, no matter how salutary the action or proposed action might be, all designed in the end by these brain-children to give their brain-child listeners that for which they tune in, confirmation that their outrageous daily conduct is good and wise, no matter how far from the historical norm of the country's collective thought and actions it might wander. Pertaining to the topic at hand, gun control, a most timely topic in this blossoming springtime of 2022, one which many, because of the insistence of these brain-children on their Second Amendment "rights", will not see to completion, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not own guns, do not want to own guns, and do not want their neighbors to own guns, that is, unless the polling organization happens to be one of the gun "rights" advocates, heavily skewing their sample to make it come out in accordance with their will, the same will which seeks to overbear everyone else, just as in their overbearing will during the election cycle of 2020, and impliedly threaten everyone else with their guns, that it will be their way or the highway. Blood-smeared blossoms are no way for various communities to have to remember this spring, when commencement exercises normally hearken new and ever brighter seasons in the sun, especially following two years of societal stress and limitation of movement.

By the way, we have sought, though it is quite difficult to stomach more than a few lines at a time for the cognitive dissonance which it engenders, to wade through a little bit of the recent opinion handed down in May, 2022 by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding, 2 to 1, with the two judges in the majority being Trump appointees barely confirmed by the Senate on a partisan vote, that California's law, subsequently amended in 2020 to add specific references to semiautomatic centerfire rifles, which, among other things, prevents sale of semiautomatic centerfire rifles to persons under the age of 21, with certain identified exemptions for those between 18 and 21, violates the Second Amendment insofar as its restrictions on sale of semiautomatic rifles to those under age 21. A large part of its rationale is based on the proposition that "young adults", whom it defines as those persons between ages 18 and 21, have served the country honorably through time in the armed forces and so should not be deprived of the "fundamental right" under the Second Amendment to bear arms, completely and illogically ignoring the fact, which it also points out, that the law in question excepts from its provisions persons, among others, who are at least 18 and are present active members of the military, the amended law having eliminated from its provisions regarding semiautomatic rifles those who have previously served in the military and received therefrom an honorable discharge, though that latter provision still applies to other "long guns" per Penal Code Section 27510(b)(2).

Given the opinion's primary practical rationale and the exceptions for present and honorably discharged military personnel, one, therefore, is left with the notion, especially since there is no military draft in the country, that the opinion is only referring to those "young adults" who are deprived of being able to own semiautomatic centerfire rifles after being honorably discharged from the military. That, for instance, in 1959, would have included Lee Harvey Oswald, then 20, before his original honorable discharge from the Marines was changed in 1962 to an undesirable discharge by the fact of his defection to the Soviet Union. Thus, we are left to conclude that these two Trump-appointed judges are finding that the young Lee Oswalds of the world, as long as honorably discharged, are the "young adults" whom they would have, irrespective of how one might conclude Lee Oswald's actual role in the assassination of President Kennedy, owning semiautomatic centerfire rifles, so that their precious "rights" under the Second Amendment will be maintained inviolate, just as the Founders, no doubt, intended—the reason they included as the modifying clause of that Amendment the phrase regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia" for the security of the country at a time when there was no standing army, a militia which would include an 18 to 21-year old Lee Oswald.

Again, we hope that this recent, stupid, irrational decision in Jones v. Bonta will be taken up en banc by the Court and ultimately decided in a sensible and rational manner, upholding California's ban on the sale of these weapons to those under age 21, except those presently who are members of law enforcement or the armed forces, or as otherwise exempted.

Moreover, we think that the notion, as these two judges stated as another part of the rationale for the decision, that these weapons are necessary for "self-defense" in the home, per the 2008 Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller, not dealing therein with any age restriction issue, is also ludicrous and irrational. For how would any semiautomatic rifle be useful in "self-defense" in the home, unless one were engaged in a standoff with the police or in some other illegal activity, such as that involving gang warfare?

We shall let the two judges speak for themselves on this point from the slip opinion, pages 39-40:

"Handguns are the quintessential self-defense weapon, see Heller, 554 U.S. at 629 [search "quintessential"], but young adults already cannot purchase them, Cal. Penal Code § 27505, 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1). And under this ban [under California law], they also cannot purchase semiautomatic centerfire rifles. That leaves nonsemiautomatic centerfire rifles, rimfire rifles, and shotguns.

Non-semiautomatic rifles are not effective as self-defense weapons because they must be manually cycled between shots, a process which becomes infinitely more difficult in a life or death situation. Rimfire rifles generally aren’t good for self-defense either, because rimfire ammunition has “poor stopping power” and are mostly used for things like hunting small game. David Steier, Guns 101, 13 (2011). So for self-defense in the home, young adults are left with shotguns.

Even acknowledging that shotguns are effective weapons for self-defense in the home, shotguns are outmatched by semiautomatic rifles in some situations. Semiautomatic rifles are able to defeat modern body armor, have a much longer range than shotguns and are more effective in protecting roaming kids on large homesteads, are much more precise and capable at preventing collateral damage, and are typically easier for small young adults to use and handle.

Thus, we hold that California’s ban is a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of self-defense in the home. Young adults already cannot buy the quintessential self-defense weapon, Heller, 554 U.S. at 629, and this ban now stops them from buying semiautomatic rifles, leaving only shotguns." [Emphasis added.]

If that is not the rambling verbiage of two people who are completely out to lunch, disconnected from reality, we do not know what would be, essentially suggesting that the home ought be a fortress of "self-defense", with "young adults" between 18 and 21 having to be capable of protecting "roaming kids on large homesteads", suggestive of raisers of billygoats, and that since a handgun, because it cannot be sold to the "young adult", either under Federal law or California law, is unavailable for the purpose, (ignoring the reality that in the home where "young adults" are left to defend the home by their parents or other circumstances via firearms, they would undoubtedly have access, nevertheless, to their parent's handgun if they were bent on having any form of firearm at all, however inherently dangerous that situation is, viz., the precis regarding the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., in 2012), leaving only the inadequate shotgun, according to this opinion, as an effective self-defense weapon because the non-semiautomatic rifle is not accurate enough, not powerful enough, not easy enough to operate for the smaller 18-21 year old, for the purpose of killing an intruder—who might actually turn out to be just papa or mama coming home unexpectedly in the middle of the stormy night after having encountered car trouble in the rain on their way to the lake and then doubling back to watch the movie and have popcorn with the kids, or an inebriated boy who mistakes the home of his neighbor in the middle of the night for that of his own virtually identical subdivision home, as actually occurred in 2013, resulting in the inadvertent 16-year old intruder being shot to death, though by an adult with a handgun equipped with a laser sight which he kept beside his bed.

Where the hell did these two bozos grow up in the 1970's and 1980's, in a goddamned actual third-world war zone? Every rationale they provide for the preservation, for "self-defense in the home", of the semiautomatic rifle in the hands of the 18-21 year old, also applies to the mass shooters, to make it that much easier to facilitate their infliction of death and injuries in "self-defense" from the police or others who might seek to intervene at their peril in the individual's crusade to let the world know, once and for all, that they have arrived at supreme independence—from their parents, from their school teachers, from the community at large, from the state, the nation, the world, that they have become their own god incarnate making their own judgments on whomever happens to have the misfortune of being in the line of fire of their semiautomatic rifle on shooting day, even if only for one brief, shining moment, before they are accommodated in their ultimate desire for vainglorious death before the eyes of the world, either by on-scene death or by the subsequent exaction by the state in formal proceedings of execution.

But what would one expect from appointees of Trump? who is obviously quite insane, still proclaiming regularly that he won the 2020 election.

We note also that it is quite all right on the extreme right to trumpet states' rights when it comes to such matters as determining a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion prior to the point of viability of the fetus, but when it comes to the regulation of guns, well, state laws notwithstanding, it is then up to the Federal courts to make sure that the Federalist Society agenda is controlling, regardless of the consequences to the safety of the general public, in furtherance, seemingly, of that Nixonian maxim which the late Charles Colson used to sport on his wall, regarding how their hearts and minds will follow...

The morass of legal intricacies related to carved exceptions in gun control laws, prompted by Heller, is precisely why the country needs to repeal the Second Amendment, an amendment no longer having place in a modern society which has a standing armed forces, including the National Guard, and is no longer reliant for its security therefore on a "well regulated militia", in the sense that phrase had in its original temporal context.

While the common law right of self-defense, replete with its slippery slope of necessary exigent circumstances for legal justification in resort to deadly force, that deadly force is reasonably and imminently apprehended by the person resorting to deadly force, has been ingrained in the law since the earliest versions of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, the Second Amendment does not refer, either expressly or implicitly, to self-defense for its raison d'ȇtre, and thus it was a Rose Mary Woods-stretch in the bottom of the seventh, legislating from the bench, for the spare majority of the Supreme Court in 2008 suddenly to "find" that rationale after it had lain dormant and hidden within the inner recesses of the document for lo the 217 years since the Amendment was ratified. It relates, by its own words, only to a well-regulated militia, not self-defense, as the four-Justice dissent opined in 2008, as the common law rights to self-defense and defense of others arise in any number of contexts of force, by no means restricted to firearms at the Founding or in more modern contexts, everything from non-deadly fisticuffs on up, even extended to concepts of international law among nations and resort to weapons of mass destruction.

That which the confused majority in Heller was therefore actually doing was finding within the penumbral rights of the Constitution, those unenumerated rights reserved to the people under the Ninth Amendment, a right of self-defense under the common law and that pistols used in defense of the "castle", the inhabited home and its curtilage, fell traditionally within that right. But since there is no Federal common law and Heller pertained only to the District of Columbia, not the states, the majority was constrained to find, reasoning in back formation, the right inherent in the Second Amendment, as well to provide it, at least sub silentio, so-called strict scrutiny as a "fundamental right", one of the specifically enumerated rights, thus entitled analytically to a finding of a compelling governmental interest for impingement on the right, otherwise, as one of the penumbral rights, only entitled, at best, to intermediate level scrutiny, requiring only an important governmental interest for impingement on the right and that, even once demonstrated, the restriction does not place an undue burden on the right which may be accomplished by lesser governmental restriction. Yet, the majority in Heller refrained from adopting any level of scrutiny, so as not to disturb, by implication, existing firearms regulations among the states or other regulations which stop short of absolute bans extending to ownership and possession within the home—to be distinguished from "homeland defense". Rose Mary Woods would have been proud, as would have her boss, no doubt.

Drew Pearson tells of the President holding another of his stag dinners, at which he made clear his intention not to run again in 1956, with those attending having been convinced that he meant it. One guest quoted him as saying, "I've had it." The President reportedly said that no political party should be dependent on one man and that he had not had a vacation during his entire life and was tired, the only period of time during which he had no stress of military duties having been when he was president of Columbia University, which he said he regarded as no vacation. He had also complained about his bursitis, indicating that it was the result of tension and so believed he was due a chance to relax at his farm in Gettysburg.

Former President Hoover had been upset at Mr. Pearson for publishing advance copies of some of the Government reorganization reports out of the Hoover Commission, so much so that he had given orders that all task force reports on reorganization be "classified", threatening to have prosecuted anyone who leaked information to the column. Mr. Pearson points out, however, that because the reports did not pertain to military or defense secrets, there was no basis on which to classify them, and that never in the country's history had it been against the law to publish information pertaining to efficiency in government. He notes that when Mr. Hoover had been President, he had also been upset whenever there had been news leaks, asking publishers to fire newsmen who published embarrassing stories. He thus states his hope that Mr. Hoover would not become too upset over the leak in this date's column.

Former Senator Harry Cain of Washington, appointed by the President to the Subversives Control Board, had testified against the loyalty and security risk program of the President. He had been an ardent advocate during his Senate days of higher rents and less public housing, had defended Senator McCarthy's war record and favored Taft-Hartley. But he informed friends that now that he was on the Board, he had more time to think and had determined that the trouble with Senators was that they were always running errands for constituents or worrying about getting re-elected. And so he had become the most ardent Republican enemy of witch-hunting by the Government. This date, he was scheduled to testify before Senator Olin Johnston of South Carolina, who was probing security risks, and planned to point out, as he had done earlier during the week, that the Attorney General's list of subversives was outmoded and misleading, with only 30 organizations out of 275 actually being Communist. He also planned to point out that the U.S. was a long way from being in danger of Communism from within.

A letter writer, president of Hynes Sales Co., Inc., thinks Charlotte air service should be placed on a par with other communities, such as Greenville, which was served by both Eastern Air Lines and the Delta-American-National combination, while Charlotte relied only on Eastern among the major airlines. The result was that when one sought to make a reservation by telephone, the line was placed on hold for 15 to 20 minutes. Capital Airlines had entered Charlotte but its service was so limited by lack of air routes that it was not to be considered a major airline at present. He hopes that the press would advocate for greater air service.

A letter from an anonymous teenager, who says that she was one of a group of 20 teenage girls who had been "so-called 'witnesses' at the so-called 'trial'" of an individual who had been accused of six counts of indecent exposure the prior May 17, says that they were told by the police that they were to testify in court against the defendant, but had not been told that he would have a "'slick'" lawyer while they had no legal representation, that prior to the trial, the 20 girls had positively identified the man and he had admitted his guilt. But after the proceeding, the court turned the man loose. She suggests that psychologists proclaimed that anyone in that mental condition would repeat the acts when let off with a small fine and a one-year suspended sentence, as in the case she references. She thinks that justice was not done, but as a 17-year old, could do virtually nothing to prevent that outcome, while, she suggests, older citizens could do something. She favors sending such people to institutions "for the rest of their lives or until they can be positively cured, although psychologists doubt that there is a permanent cure."

So, as a 17-year old, you want someone who might be having only a very transitory issue, maybe a domestic dispute or loss of employment, such that they expose themselves to you, locked up for the rest of their lives in a mental institution, because you saw his little Twinkie for a moment. Perhaps, it might be you and your friends, also, who need some serious psychological counseling. You and your friends should have told the individual to zip it up, Cowboy, as you were not his Rough Riders. Undoubtedly, he would have slinked off into some quiet corner of shame and probably not repeated the conduct. Instead, you got all huffy and called the cops, and now are not satisfied with shaming the man publicly, presenting his name in your letter, making it the harder for him to reform, but also want him sent away for the rest of his life and confined to a mental institution. You are not interested genuinely in anyone's rehabilitation, only giving that lip-service to accommodate your conscience. Punishment, for the rest of the man's natural life, is your obvious goal, for a misdemeanor. What kind of a nut are you? Being only 17 does not permit you to be a Draconian nut.

Incidentally, had there been adequate proof of such additional conduct, as the girl claims, that the young man also chased them in his car for miles, causing them to exceed the speed limit to escape him, then other, more serious charges should have been filed by the solicitor, including multiple felonies for reckless driving and reckless endangerment. So if that was actually the case and was credible, her beef is with the prosecution, not the "slick" defense attorney, who was only doing his proper job within our adversarial system. She needs also, therefore, to take a good course in civics to understand better our basic system of law and government under the Constitution, lest she be lured in a few years to become a neo-Nazi or Klanswoman, in which case she would be exposed to far more than a few Twinkies.

A letter writer suggests that shame should fall on the judicial and penal systems of Mecklenburg County and the state when the only answer to sexual perversity was a term in a penal institution where homosexuality and other such practices flourished. She thinks that proper psychological, psychiatric and medical guidance should be provided instead of wasting the life of the accused and expecting adequate treatment from prison personnel not equipped to provide that treatment.

A letter writer from Port Washington, N.Y., indicates that the state chairman of the 102nd Infantry Division Association was conducting a search to locate 800 North Carolina veterans of that Division who had seen combat service during World War II, as the Division would hold a national reunion in Toledo, O., in late July, indicates that there were approximately 26,000 men representing all states who had fought with the Division through the Rhineland and Central Europe campaigns, urges those in North Carolina to contact the state chairman, whose address he provides in Winston-Salem.

A letter writer indicates that people from the South should dissociate from those of the Nazi Party, "with their racial and class stuff", who were desirous of resisting the Supreme Court decision holding segregation in the public schools unconstitutional. She counsels that Southerners could not allow themselves to be associated with such people, in contrast to their "manners, respect for civil law and the lawful constitution of our country."

A letter writer indicates that he had noticed that the General Assembly of the Presbyterians had criticized the Roman Catholic Church for exalting the name of Mary, Mother of Christ. He wonders why not do likewise to the Government for using the likenesses of Presidents on its coins and currency, or for the placing of statues in public buildings and parks, or the Lutherans for their movie about Luther's life, or every church in the country which used a saint's name. He concludes that if it was wrong to exalt the name of Mary, then he welcomed the consistent criticism.

A letter writer counsels never to hold a grudge against anyone else, or to refuse to speak to an individual, that she would rather be good and kind to others and leave a good name behind than to leave millions of dollars, for one left behind only a good name or a bad one. She counsels putting God in one's life.

A letter writer from Morganton indicates that during the telephone strike, now ended, he and his family had as good or better telephone service than prior to the strike, and doffs his hat to the company for maintaining that service during a difficult time. He indicates that he had no connection with the strike or the telephone company. He finds that a previous letter writer who had claimed that the company had been trying to break the union did not represent his perspective, that the company had only sought not to turn over management to union bosses while not refusing to bargain on salaries and other benefits, that under the terms of the agreement the employees had received a raise of between one dollar and four dollars per week to their salaries which had ranged from $43 to $57 per week prior to the strike. Each operator had lost between $430 and $570 during the 10 weeks of the strike and so it would take many weeks to make up the difference from the amount of the salary increases. He questions whether the union officials refused their salaries during the strike or suspended the dues of the members. He also questions what a scab was, whether someone with patches on his pants or a woman with patched panties, urges the previous letter writer to answer his questions.

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.