The Charlotte News
Saturday, May 4, 1957
FOUR EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that in Wichita Falls, Tex., several bridges had been covered by flood waters this date as steady rains fed already overflowing creeks and lakes, with police and civil defense units evacuating more flood-threatened families. Rain had fallen through the night and water in the south sections of the city rose more than 4 inches in a single hour, according to a police sergeant. He said that at least 15 families had been evacuated, and quoted a fellow officer that the flood would be worse than the one they had in 1955, when hundreds had been evacuated. In 1950, about 500 families had been evacuated in Wichita Falls when the creek had flooded. Rains of more than 6 inches had fallen on the upper Brazos River, where some communities were evacuated early in the flooding. Water had risen in Dennis and Bennett and neared Tin Top, which had suffered flood damage earlier. Up to 6 inches of rain at Iredell, south of Fort Worth in central Texas, had caused some flooding of Valley Mills, Meridian and between Meridian and Blum. Red Cross officials estimated that up to 9,000 persons were driven from their homes during the floods, and the state civil disaster headquarters said that flooding had impacted 35,000 square miles. It was the 17th day in which floods had raged through parts of Texas after seven years of scorching drought.
In Tabor City, N.C., the retiring principal of the high school, C. H. Pinner, said that he could control the students but could not control the parents, shaking his head as he watched 200 striking students at his school parade in a drizzling rain the previous day, shouting, "We want Pinner!" and "No Pinner, no school!" He said that he had tried to contact the student body leaders but had been unsuccessful in staging a conference because parents of the leaders refused to let their youngsters enter the school building. The students refused to attend classes in protest against the school board's failure to rehire for the ensuing school year the principal who had been at the school for 19 years. It was reported that several of the parents had prepared some of the signs which the students carried. While some of the parents removed their children from the picket line, many more had watched with interest. The protest had begun early in the week when 400 citizens had attended a meeting at the school and complained about the school board's decision not to rehire the principal, with no board members having attended that meeting. The principal said early in the week that he had planned to retire at the end of the current school year, but had reconsidered and reapplied to the school board for the position, having decided to remain after many young mothers at the preschool clinic had requested that he do so. The school board, however, voted four to one in favor of not rehiring him but said that they would consider his new application along with others they had received. High school students in Fayetteville had recently gone on strike when the school board there had refused to rehire their principal, with the school board eventually giving in. One student at Tabor City said that the other students would have shown their respect better for their principal if they had not staged the demonstration, as most of them were doing so just to get out of school. The principal had broken up strike-planning meetings twice and asked the students not to stage a strike. School officials said that about a quarter of the student body had attended school the previous day.
Revolution is in the air... McCarthy
is dead
In Charlotte, an unemployed father of ten was sentenced to 12 months on the roads this date after trial which ended almost as abruptly as his career as a blackmail artist. He had been charged with blackmail in an attempted shakedown of a 67-year old retired railroad man, whom he accused of having intimate relations with his 17-year old daughter. He had been arrested on Thursday morning after accepting $250 of $1,500 he had demanded from the elderly man, after the police had observed the transaction taking place in the justice of the peace office, where the man had asked to be paid the money. The offense was punishable at the discretion of the court, with the usual maximum punishment for a misdemeanor being two years in jail.
Charles Kuralt of The News reports that Charlotte could now rid itself of slums at cut-rate prices after the urban redevelopment bill had passed the Legislature during the week. It meant that the city could now end the vermin-infested tinderboxes which made up much of the Greenville and Brooklyn sections. The only prerequisite for seeing it come true was some hard work, as the program was not a Federal giveaway, requiring fights in the courts and a show of determination that the slums would have to go. The General Assembly had provided the ammunition for voting compliance with Federal requirements that slum areas could be condemned if two-thirds of its buildings were substandard. In 1953, the Assembly had insisted that all buildings in a slum area had to be substandard before being condemned, destroying Charlotte's most recent attempt at urban renewal. Earlier opposition had come from the tenants themselves, many of whom were unwilling to give up their shabby dwellings to move elsewhere, some having lived in those houses all of their lives, feeling that there was no place like home even if it was a dingy firetrap. But the greatest roadblock was public ignorance, with not many knowing enough about urban redevelopment to know whether they were for it or not. To qualify for Federal aid, Charlotte would have to do several things, check its codes and ordinances to make sure that they were sufficient to do the job, set up an administrative organization for vigorous enforcement action, use community pressure to remove the causes of blight and establish neighborhood improvement associations, civic groups and citizen planning bodies, take a good look at itself and decide what community it wanted to be, integrate the above plan with the overall city plan for parks, schools, major arteries of transportation, shopping centers, residential centers and business and industry, and finally, develop a financing plan, with the city's one-third share of the project cost not needing to be in cash but able to take the form of public improvements.
Another piece takes a brief look at the history of redevelopment in Charlotte, from August, 1951 when the City had established the Redevelopment Commission, which had talked to the Federal Government and received a grant of $27,000 to begin the redevelopment of blighted areas in the city, with two sections chosen to make a start. After the Commission surveyed the sections and planned their redevelopment, they prepared detailed maps, plans, cost estimates and reports. But the 1953 General Assembly provided that even one good building in an otherwise blighted area would prevent redevelopment, a plan which the Commission deemed "unworkable". It was that provision which had now been removed by the current Assembly. In the interim, Federal officials had decided they could no longer justify funding for survey and planning in the state, and in August, 1953, notified the Commission that they were withdrawing aid. A month later, the Commission informed the City Council that they had terminated their operations and disposed of their furniture and equipment, settled their accounts and closed their office, releasing their staff, thus ending redevelopment, with the slums still remaining.
Julian Scheer of The News tells of a State Representative having told another Representative that he would have to support the bill to establish daylight savings time in the state, saying: "Now that the time has changed, the television shoot-'em-ups and cartoon shows are coming on during supper time. It disrupts our household. Used to be rid of those things when I came from work, now we can't get the kids to the table or any peace for poppa." The other Representative wondered whether the cows would know of the time change. Burke Davis of the Greensboro Daily News, former editor of the Charlotte News, the "Emmett Kelly of the General Assembly", had a lengthy talk with Mr. Scheer regarding lobbyists recently, with Mr. Davis suggesting that they did more work outside the lobby than in it at present, and that the name should be changed to "Rotundists" or "Capitolists". He finds that Mr. Davis had failed to mention a logical name, "Bowmans", for Judge Fred Bowman, a lobbyist of the highest caliber and a favorite of Mr. Davis. Mr. Scheer goes on to provide some other snippets from Raleigh and Charlotte politics.
In Charlotte, the temperature was expected to dip to 40 degrees this night, with frost and freeze warnings being issued for the mountains and northern Piedmont. The cool, cloudy weather would continue during the weekend in the area, but a warmer trend was expected to begin on Monday. The low the previous night had been 48 and the high this date had been about 55, with the following day's high expected to be 60.
In Lansing, Mich., the State Senate had vetoed a move to return to the "free lunch" in saloons, with the Senators killing a House-approved bill to permit tavern-keepers to offer free snacks to patrons.
On the sports page, it was reported that there was a chance that the NCAA Eastern Regionals in basketball might be played in Charlotte the following March, after a strong recommendation for it by Eddie Cameron, the Duke University athletic director. Also on the sports page was a story concerning Wilt Chamberlain of the University of Kansas, who had been defeated by UNC by a point in three overtimes in the NCAA finals the previous March 23, the story indicating that he might leave Kansas for the pros following this, his sophomore year. He would attend one more year at Kansas before joining the Harlem Globetrotters for a season, then, in 1959, joining the Philadelphia Warriors, to be coached by Frank McGuire, current head coach of UNC, after Mr. McGuire would resign his post in Chapel Hill in August, 1961, to become head coach of the Warriors at a salary of $12,000, the highest at the time in the NBA, albeit only for one season, not moving with the team when it changed its home to San Francisco.
On the editorial page, "The Tragedy of Joseph R. McCarthy" finds that the rise and fall of Senator McCarthy had contained elements of tragedy, with his death on Thursday at Bethesda Naval Hospital having drawn the final curtain on an era which had bruised and distorted the moral image of the nation and had been a disheartening phenomenon.
It finds, however, that the Senator had been both the perpetrator and the victim of the frenzy of his day. "He was a little man who, almost by accident, became suddenly very, very big. A natural bravado, an exact knowledge of the uses of fear, his excesses of ideology and action all added to his frame and power. For a time, the junior senator from Wisconsin actually commanded more attention than the President of the United States."
He had plunged the nation into a crisis of spirit, but was never destined to be a continuing power in the country's politics and thought, as Americans were not accustomed to living in fear and were not the type of people who would allow their institutions to be subverted by fear. They were essentially moderate and their great inner strength was a sense of equilibrium which had carried them through many previous crises of spirit.
It finds that Senator McCarthy had made a terrible mistake, going too far, and could not change, continuing to indulge in the jargon of rational alarm when anyone would listen, with the flashes of insight all gone and his dogmatic appeals being so extreme that they appeared questionable or patently false even to many of his former followers.
"At the end he was a forlorn and forsaken figure—censured by his colleagues in the United States Senate, deserted by many of the very people he once aroused so successfully." It finds that he would remain through the years as the central figure in an American tragedy, having, in the course of a single decade, almost made the full cycle from obscurity to fame and notoriety and back again to obscurity, becoming merely a guilt symbol left over from another age. "Out of the tragedy, all that remained was pity."
"Reapportionment: From Bad to Worse" indicates that the larger counties in the state which had fought for so long for reapportionment by the Legislature might wind up having to fight against it, as it now appeared that there were two types of reapportionment, that defined by the State Constitution, which had been defeated in the State Senate three weeks earlier, and appeared dead for the current session, and a conscience-soothing substitute, now receiving publicity and some steam for passage.
As introduced in the Senate the previous day, that new form of reapportionment would base the General Assembly on the U.S. Congress, with the Senate representing area only and each county guaranteed one member and limited to one member, while the House would be increased by 40 members, with the additional seats apportioned on the basis of population.
At first glance, it seemed fair and reasonable, but North Carolina's 100 counties were not replicas of the 48 states, as the states were sovereign and the counties were merely administrative units of State Government. The states were guaranteed equal representation in the Senate to preserve their separateness, their individuality and their distinct identities.
But North Carolina needed, rather than encouragement of differences between the counties and sections, a softening of the jealousies and fears which already existed.
It indicates that the chief fault of the "new reapportionment" plan was not the illusion of fairness, but rather the reality of its unfair design to make the larger population centers even more impotent in the General Assembly.
Mecklenburg County was entitled to two Senators under the State Constitution but presently only had one and 1-50th of the voting power of the Senate. Under the new plan, it would have one Senator and one-hundredth of the voting power, and the addition of three new Representatives in the House would not come close to compensating for the dilution of its power in the Senate, where every county would be guaranteed one Senator, with the rural areas thus gaining a total veto power over any legislation.
It thus finds the new plan not only to deprive Mecklenburg of its right to a second Senator, but dividing its current voting power in its one Senator in half. It concludes that it would be worse than no reapportionment at all and that the Assembly ought remember that the one-Senator limitation already had been defeated by the people at the polls.
"Changelessness in an Era of Change" tells of the principles of education having undergone many changes in the previous 50 years of progress, with "progressive education", "learning by doing", and "fundamental self-discipline" being only a few of the milestones in that process of change. Change had become the watchword in mass education. There was always a John Dewey, Frederick L. Redefer or H. Gordon Hullfish to trailblaze new directions.
North Carolina's educational
archives, however, had produced an educational principle which was
essentially changeless, dating from 1907 from J. Y. Joyner, at the
time State superintendent of public instruction—and for whom Joyner Dormitory on the UNC campus is named, surviving thus far the highly questionable presentism fad of trying to rename everything on campus to comport with some nebulously self-gratifying attempt at accumulation of power to change the existing order, the superannuated adolescent's equivalent to leaving behind one's mark through inscribing graffiti, to blot out the past in purblind ignorance of the reality of history and its context through time, irrespective of individuals and names, representative of societal change and thus instructive of the past in contrast to the present, while thereby enabling the true obscurantists to be able to claim, with some apparent credulity, that "liberals", even while grossly abusing the label and overgeneralizing to meet their preconceived notion of who "they" are, are simply destroying everything sacred and, ergo, everyone should, nay, must, vote for Trump, who will grant your every wish at Christmas, including a million dead from the worst pandemic in American history thanks to his complete abdication of leadership, except ushering all who would listen over the cliff with the other lemmings, yammering the while about reopenimg everything by Easter, 2020, then Memorial Day, then July 4th, then Labor Day, and if not then, by Election Day, as confusingly indefinite and every bit as destructive as were the varying numbers of "card-carrying Commuunists" in the State Department in 1950, as summarily declared in ukase fashion by his forerunner demagogue, Senator McCarthy
Mr. Joyner had stated: "Without the vitalizing touch of a properly qualified teacher, houses, grounds and equipment are largely dead mechanism. It is the teacher that breathes the breath of life into the school. Better schools are impossible without better teachers. Better teachers are impossible without better education, better training and better opportunities for them to obtain such education and training. Better education and better training and the utilization of better opportunities for these by teachers are impossible without better pay for teachers. Reason as we may about it, gush as we may about the nobility of the work and the glorious rewards of it hereafter, back of this question of better teachers must lie the cold business question of better pay."
It indicates that changes would have to occur in education but that the changes had to be rooted in the essential changelessness of the wisdom of Mr. Joyner, something for the General Assembly to ponder in the closing days of the 1957 session.
"Design" indicates that experts of the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory had designed a new "wonder car" which would make crashes as painless as possible through padding and encirclement by a bumper attached directly to the chassis through shock absorbers.
It suggests that if science would devote as much attention to the design of the driver as it did to the design of the car, everyone would be better off. "New-fashioned cars driven by old-fashioned idiots can never be completely pain-proof."
A piece from the Greensboro Daily News, titled "'By Car Forever'", tells of Peter De Vries having summed up a central theme of mid-20th Century life when he had said that the role of the modern suburban mother was to "deliver children—obstetrically once, and by car forever."
It indicates that in a household it knew, the husband hardly ever asked whether the car went to work with him, and on at least five days of the week, it went with the wife, who chauffeured during most of her day, one child to music lessons, another to Brownies, and another to kindergarten. There were also excursions to the dentist, hairdresser, to other children's parties, to the shopping center to obtain presents for parties, etc.
While parked patiently outside the music teacher's house on a balmy April afternoon with two children climbing over the husband and wife and another tinkling sweet melodies inside, a car had arrived in haste and a child in jeans had dashed madly inside, turning out to be a friend who was keeping house for her brother-in-law and wife while they vacationed. She had stated that she did not realize that chauffeuring was such a chore and wondered if all of the young people were running on the same breathless schedule. It had admitted that they were, if their children were properly representative.
"And the older the children, the more chauffeuring until that dread moment when they begin driving themselves."
Drew Pearson indicates that the most important fact in Congress, as members compared notes following the Easter recess, was that "modern Republicanism" had become a dirty phrase, with no one standing up to fight for it, except possibly the Democrats. On the previous November 6, the President had been re-elected by one of the most overwhelming margins of victory in modern times and had told the nation and his party that his great ambition during the ensuing four years would be to remake the Republican Party in his own image.
Now that six months had passed since the election, the primary planks in the President's platform of modern Republicanism, which included aid to education, foreign aid, a new minimum wage, Social Security, etc., were almost entirely deserted by the Republicans. Most of the planks were included in the battle over the budget. The average Republican would say that the chief reason for their desertion of their own President was that he could not run again and thus had lost his political bargaining power. But that was only a small part of the picture, as other Presidents who did not run again had not let their power slip away in just six months. He finds the answer to be more significant, boiling down to the fact that the President would not fight for his friends, that he would not discipline his enemies, and that he would frequently change his mind on issues, leaving those who supported him out on a limb.
He cites as example of the latter the battle over the budget, with many Republican Senators agreeing in their hearts with the President regarding the importance of the budget. But if the President made a fight for the budget, he would suddenly change his mind, leaving such a Senator out in front waving for his cohorts to follow while those who were following "modern Republicanism" retreated with the President in the opposite direction. The President's recent retreat on the budget, amounting to about 1.7 billion dollars, had been one straw in the wind, making every Senator who was about to defend the budget stop and wonder whether the President was going to retreat again.
Some of them also pointed to the experience of Senator Alexander Wiley of Wisconsin, who had fought harder than anyone for the Eisenhower policies, having fought his fellow-Senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, and against isolation in a state where isolation was sometimes popular. When the Wisconsin isolationists had ganged up on him to defeat his effort at re-election the prior year, everyone had expected that the President would come to his defense, and Senator Wiley had asked for the President's support. But the President offered none and the McCarthy-isolationists had refused to nominate Senator Wiley, forcing him to go to the state convention where he finally won. Having won on his own, he now owed no political debts to the President and so was no longer sticking his neck out for him.
Other Senators were aware of those facts and had watched other cases where the President had failed to go to bat for his friends, the most notable having been that of General George Marshall, who, as chief of staff of the Army, had promoted Mr. Eisenhower from lieutenant colonel to lieutenant general and made him commander-in-chief in the European theater during the war. When General Marshall had been branded a traitor by Senator William Jenner of Indiana, the President had allowed himself to be photographed in a friendly pose with Senator Jenner, and later, when the President's advisers had inserted two paragraphs in the President's Milwaukee speech in 1952 praising General Marshall, the President was persuaded by friends of Senator McCarthy to strike the two paragraphs. He concludes that the President had, in effect, kissed his friends' enemies.
Walter Lippmann indicates that in Tunisia, which had been celebrating its first anniversary of national independence, one could see the crisis in Jordan from an interesting and revealing perspective, as in the country, perhaps more clearly than anywhere else in the Arab world, there was a will to work out the national future without enmity toward Western Europe and the U.S., even with accommodation to those interests. Tunisia had turned away from the ways of Premier Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt and his attempt to take all of the Arab peoples. Tunisia represented a progressive nationalism which was energetic but not fanatical, presenting itself as an alternative to that which had precipitated the crisis in Jordan.
He finds the critical question to be whether the future of the community of Arab peoples lay with Premier Nasser or with men such as the leader of Tunisia, Habib Bourguiba, with the super-nationalists in Egypt or with the nationalists and reformers in the various countries. He suggests that the answer was dependent only on what the U.S. would contribute to the development of Tunisia and how farsighted and generous was the French policy, with it finally perhaps determined by what would happen in neighboring Algeria.
He posits that the general conclusion was likely to be that foreign intervention, whether by the Soviets or by the French, British or Americans, would be secondary to the internal conflict within the Arab countries, in all of which, though in differing degrees, the issue had been raised by two great conflicting tendencies, the one, as exemplified in Tunisia, being to maintain the existing political and social order of the national liberators and, to some degree, to reform and improve it, while the other tendency, originating from Cairo, was revolutionary, aiming not only to overthrow the existing political order, as attempted recently in Jordan, but also at the creation of the revolutionary imperialism which would make Premier Nasser the master of the Arab world.
In Tunisia, the progressive nationalism provided a genuine and promising alternative to the revolutionary movement which Premier Nasser was leading. Where there was no such alternative, as in Jordan, there was not much left to do other than to suppress the revolutionary forces by martial law. Both the Soviet Union and the U.S. were involved in the conflict between the revolutionary forces and the established order, with U.S. policy being to support the established order against the revolutionary movements, while encouraging the existing rulers to be progressive and benevolent, and trying to raise the standard of living among the people. But when the ruling classes would not be progressive and benevolent, as in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. would support them nevertheless because they maintained the existing order as against the revolutionary and fanatically anti-Western popular forces excited by Premier Nasser.
The Soviets, by contrast, supported the revolutionary forces whenever they could, without committing themselves to military action or large financial contributions. They supported Premier Nasser's revolution, not because he was a Communist, but because if he succeeded, he would irretrievably ruin the Western European and American positions in the Middle East.
Mr. Lippmann suggests that it did not necessarily follow that the Soviets could take over what the Western nations would lose. Premier Nasser's revolution, if it gained the momentum of success, would probably produce a prolonged disorder and anarchy rather than a new social order. But from the Soviet point of view, that would mean that the U.S. and Europe were no longer in a strategic position to threaten the soft underbelly of the Soviet Union.
One of the questions bound to be asked by Americans was whether they had to accept the historical fatalism as an unchangeable fact of life. Mr. Lippmann could not see anything out of Moscow suggesting that the grim and dangerous contest could be moderated, much less ended, with the latest unofficial Soviet statement during the week having suggested that U.S. support of King Hussein in Jordan against those who would overthrow him, and bringing Jordan under the domination of Egypt and Syria, was viewed as a plot against Arab independence.
But if nothing had come from Moscow which suggested that negotiations and arrangements were possible, nothing had come from the President and Secretary of State Dulles which suggested that they had any thought of negotiation and an accommodation which would recognize the national interest of Russia in the Middle East. Nothing had come from them which suggested that they had anything more constructive in mind than a policy of unconditional surrender.
He indicates that he thought well of
what the U.S. had done in Jordan, but that martial law under a little
King was not a durable order of things, and the U.S. would have to
look ahead, with the long-haul stronger if the U.S. made it known
that the issues
Robert C. Ruark, writing from Chapel Hill, says that it was not true that one could not go home again, indicating that he was writing the piece from the Phi Kappa Sigma fraternity house, where he learned most of his more pleasant bad habits between 1931 and 1936 as a student, finding very little to have changed in the interim except his hairline.
He finds it fantastic to observe that there was very little changed in the students from the group of ruffians in which he had been raised. He finds the coeds still pretty, the bar still active, and the hospitality almost excessive.
He indicates that at present he should be downstairs in the basement in the necking-and-drinking room, but that the boys were having a party and the jukebox was blaring Elvis, and he did not have a date in any event.
He says he had become a philanthropist by providing them an ice-making machine which turned out 110 pounds of cubes per day, as they were having trouble scholastically for having to go around the corner constantly for ice. That would save about $20 per month which they could invest in whiskey, would save them time so that they could study more, and provide them money as the fraternity across the street also needed ice.
He finds the music not to have changed at all, except for the rock 'n' roll influence, with most of the stuff which Frank Sinatra sang being revivals of the music he had bought for the fraternity house when he was its cultural chairman, that all of the stuff which Bing Crosby sang, which Ella Fitzgerald sang and which Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Rodgers and Hart and Harold Arlen had written in the earlier times were still around, before Elvis, when melody and words were still important.
He finds the campus just as green as in his day and the kids were still cutting classes to go out to Sparrow's Lake—wherever that is, as we never heard of it in seven years there, even if in our time there were many kids cutting grasses without class—, and that the professors who enforced intelligence on them were still cramming culture down the unwilling gullets of the lads and lassies who would rather neck in the moonlight.
Phillips Russell, who had taught Mr. Ruark a precious thing or two, had trimmed his eyebrows and mustache and seemed generally younger than when he was losing weight trying to interest Mr. Ruark in unsplit infinitives—to be or to not be being the inquisitor's Gordion knot to be. The apprentice instructor who had taught him Spanish was now head of the romance language department and the pretty 20-year old coed who had kissed him without introduction, and whose picture as a five-year old he had carried with him during the war for good luck, turned out to be the daughter of some fine friends. Charlie Shaffer had been a good football player, and was now a graying dignitary who had the good taste to marry an old dancing partner of Mr. Ruark. (His son would subsequently play as a starter on the basketball team in the early editions coached by Dean Smith, and was a class officer—as we would find out in our young years by browsing our older brother's Yackety Yacks before we matriculated, as well as listening to the broadcasts regularly of Bill Currie. But you youngsters, including some of our own contemporaries, probably haven't the foggiest notion of what we are even talking about. Who? When? We have told you before that we go back a long way, even to the turn of the 19th Century.)
He says that some friends had taken him to a party in Raleigh recently and he had only missed two faces, as they all looked to him as only slightly older sophomores, no matter how much gray hair, balder, thinner or fatter they were.
"The people who were nice to you then are fondly remembered, and the enemies have all gone away. It is true that you can come home again, because, really, you never went away."
Incidentally, out of curiosity today, we looked up the etymology and origin of the phrase "yackety yack" to see whether it developed out of ordinary scuttlebutt, that is colloquialisms, or derived from a philological treatise of some description or as a nonsense phrase appearing in some literary work, even belles lettres, as 'twere, as "sockdolager" or "sockdolagizing mantrap", or perhaps as some fishmongering billingsgate issued on the docks as an oath, as "you yackety yack, you", from far back in time and times forgot, and so we checked the usual place for such authoritative information on the English language, the comprehensive, unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, which informed us thus, under either "yackety" or "yack", as a verb.
But, if the phrase dates only from 1953, OED—though, for your jingle-jangle, slipslap blabosity, failing even in your earliest citation—oh, so sorry
A letter writer appeals to the women of Charlotte to recall that they had a very competent and sincere female candidate asking for their support in the municipal general election of the following Tuesday, referring to City Council member Martha Evans. She says that Mrs. Evans's record for the previous two years had been one of which any woman could be proud to acclaim, and deserved respect and interest. She had recently been able to obtain a female for the park board. She says that she sincerely believes that the city needed the interest and views of its women to help guide them to a well-balanced progressive city.
A letter writer also supports the re-election of Mrs. Evans, whom he finds had proven her intelligence, integrity, interest and intestinal fortitude in dealing with public problems conscientiously "and as capably as any man ever elected to the Council." He says that they needed more women of her caliber in local politics and urges to keep her there.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.