The Charlotte News
Saturday, May 10, 1958
THREE EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page
reports from Moscow that Premier Nikita Khrushchev said the previous
night that he still wanted to sit down with other heads of government
at a summit conference but would not accept the list of what ought be
discussed at the summit offered by Secretary of State Dulles. He said
that the Soviets had "nerves as tough as Alpine rope",
addressing diplomats and officials at the Czechoslovak Embassy's
National Day reception, and that it would take more than world
tensions to frighten the Russians. Western correspondents had not
been invited to the reception, but other newsmen present said that
the Soviet leader expressed a desire for summit talks to the same
degree that the Western powers wanted them, but that if they wanted
to maintain a tense situation, then it would have to be that way,
that they could live in tension also. (The statement appeared to
forecast the Premier's statement to President Kennedy toward the end
of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962, that the two sides had
pulled too tight the rope in opposing directions and needed to relax
the tension, which had been followed two days later, on October 28,
by the agreement of the Soviets to remove their missile launchers and
missiles from the bases recently established in Cuba, discovered by
the CIA on Sunday, October 14, and reported to the President two days later, just
before the medium-range missiles, capable of hitting multiple targets
almost anywhere in the U.S., were to become operational. While, parenthetically, the resolution of that crisis was unsatisfactory to the hawks, such as Air Force chief of staff, General Curtis LeMay, who preferred the other option to the blockade and a diplomatic solution through the U.N. and via direct communication, that other avenue having been to bomb Cuba and elimination of its capability as a base in that manner, to have done so would likely have meant a nuclear exchange
Investigators for the Senate Select Committee investigating misconduct of unions and management had called this date for an immediate FBI investigation of asserted cut-rate stock dealings between some labor union officials and some East Coast employers. Committee counsel Robert F. Kennedy said that the Justice Department was being asked to study Committee testimony for possible violation of Federal anti-racketeering and labor laws. The Committee the previous day had called a tentative halt in its own inquiry into those deals after a Philadelphia grocery chain executive had testified that his firm had let certain union officials and their relatives purchase stocks and bonds at bargain basement rates. Louis Stein, president of Food Fair Stores, said that the practice was done to avoid ill will, but not to curry favor. He denied that Food Fair had received softer contracts with the unions than competitors. But Committee chairman, Senator John McClellan of Arkansas, had called that a point subject to debate. Mr. Stein had testified after George Kopecky, an investigator for the Committee, had testified that 21 union members or relatives of union officials had paid $42,100 for securities worth $90,400 on the open market. No one had challenged that fact. Mr. Kopecky said that the transactions dealt with securities of Food Fair Properties, Inc., a subsidiary of Food Fair, which had stores in eight Eastern and Southern states. Listed among the buyers had been Max Block, an international vice-president of the butchers union and head of its New York locals 342 and 640, and his brother Louis, who administered the union's program and welfare fund. Mr. Kennedy said that the Committee planned hearings the following week on the Block brothers and their relations with the scandal-tinged furriers union in New York. He added that it would be a broad-scale inquiry, also involving other matters. Testifying on another transaction, Mr. Stein said that he believed he was "highly indiscreet" in engineering the sale of $15,000 worth of stock in the Dan River Mills, a Virginia textile firm, to Benjamin Lapensohn of the Teamsters for $10,000. Samuel Mandell, a Philadelphia produce dealer, said that the Dan River stock had been sold by him to Mr. Lapensohn at the request of Mr. Stein. Mr. Lapensohn was described in testimony as a Teamsters fixer. He was out of the country and had been denounced by Senator McClellan as a fugitive from a Committee subpoena. (The air raid siren sat atop the building which housed the Food Fair up the street a couple of blocks from where we lived in 1962, and we were quite thankful then that it did not emit its ear-piercing scream, except for five minutes at the usual hour of noon on Saturdays, during the latter part of October that year.)
In Hot Springs, Va., some business leaders told Secretary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks of faint signs that April might have brought a turning point in the recession for several key industries, but the optimism was far from unanimous among the 100 top-level corporate executives meeting as part of the Commerce Secretary's Business Advisory Council. The business leaders did not agree on whether the Government ought stand pat on taxes or ask Congress to cut the income tax rate as a boost for business. A special seven-member anti-recession committee of the BAC, named in April at the request of Secretary Weeks to recommend a prescription for recovery, had produced a report the previous day, proposing that the President call on industry and labor for a voluntary, one-year moratorium on both wage increases and price increases and that no tax reduction be sought at present, but that "if the decline in general consumption continues", a flat percentage cut ought be made in all personal income tax rates. The proposed moratorium had provoked no discussion, but the tax recommendation had prompted debate which revealed a split, some members calling for a quick 10 percent, 7 billion dollar tax cut, while others protested that tax reduction was unnecessary and would be inflationary and damaging to the Federal fiscal structure. Secretary Weeks had told newsmen that he would ask the committee, headed by the chairman of the board of Sears, Roebuck and Co., T. V. Houser, to continue working and report back in June because by June 30, there would have to be some kind of tax bill. On that date, the corporate tax rate would drop to 47 percent from 52 percent and some excise tax rates would be reduced automatically as well.
In East Berlin, Communist East Germany this date had joined in the Soviet bloc's condemnation of an independent program adopted by the Yugoslav Communist Congress the previous month.
In Vientiane, Laos, candidates of the leftist Pathet Lao, running strong in six of the twelve provinces of the country, this date appeared certain to capture several seats in elections for a National Assembly.
In Paris, it was reported, according to reliable sources this date, that Pierre Pflimlin would accept President Rene Coty's request to try to form the 25th post-war government, and would go before Parliament for approval of it on Tuesday.
In Beirut, Lebanon, it was reported that rioters had burned the U.S. Information Service library this date in Tripoli—not the one in Libya. Reports from the scene said that Government forces had brought the rioting under control. Rifle fire had broken out in the center of the city earlier this date, with reports by telephone indicating that a curfew had been imposed on one district. Those reports said that rioters had smashed their way into the closed library, hauled out books and then set the place on fire. Fire engines had raced to the scene and prevented the fire from destroying the building. The exact amount of damage had not immediately been determined. After setting the library on fire, the rioters had struck at a nearby gun shop and stolen rifles. When security forces entered the central district, the rioters had turned those guns against them. The rioting had stemmed from a general strike called throughout Lebanon by opposition parties protesting the slaying on Thursday of Al Matni, the editor and publisher of the Beirut daily, Al-Telegraf, a foe of pro-Western President Camille Chamoun. A Government communiqué in Beirut had said: "Demonstrations took place in Tripoli and demonstrators attacked certain commercial establishments. Security forces have taken control of the city."
In Los Angeles, pickets appeared at a small plant of Douglas Aircraft Co. early this date, but a spokesman for the company said that no strike action had been announced and that negotiators for the company and the International Association of Machinists were to meet during the morning. An official of the union said that as far as he knew, the action was not authorized by the union.
In Cincinnati, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. had become the third major rubber company to receive notice from the United Rubber Workers Union of a reopening of contracts for bargaining on wage increases.
In Washington, Armed Forces Week began this date with a big demonstration of military might at Andrews Air Force Base in nearby Maryland.
In Beckley, W. Va., one of five tubercular convicts, who had escaped from a state sanitarium the prior Thursday night, had been fatally shot this date at a Beckley apartment house, the individual having been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.
In San Francisco, evangelist Billy Graham said that "conformity is one of the great sins of our time." Speaking to a near-capacity crowd of 16,200 people at the Cow Palace the previous night, the evangelist talked against doing what the crowd did just because everybody was doing it, saying: "It's a fatal road that leads to destruction in hell. All of God's great men in history have been those who have been able to stand alone. Noah stood alone while his contemporaries followed the broad road and perished—in style." He said that the "narrow road", as set out by Christ on the cross, "leads to life, not only the life to come, but Life now, with a capital L." He said that few, however, found it, that some did not care, some neglected it and some rejected it, that while people strove for many things, seldom did people strive or deny themselves for religion.
In Lincoln, Neb., accused murderer
Charles Starkweather, 19, would take the stand the following week in
his murder trial for the death of 17-year old Robert Jensen of Bennet
the prior January 27, the only murder for which he was presently being tried, out of 10
murders in January of which he and his 14-year old
girlfriend, Caril Ann Fugate, had been accused, including that of Mr. Jensen's girlfriend Carol King, with an 11th
murder the prior December accused only against Charles. Caril was also charged with the murder of Mr. Jensen but her case was in abeyance, awaiting a decision from the State Supreme Court as to whether she could be charged as an adult or should only be treated as a juvenile. Charles
faced potentially either the electric chair or life imprisonment if
convicted on first-degree murder, with the jury being the ultimate
arbiter of whether a conviction would result in life or death. Mr.
Starkweather's defense counsel had told the jury in his opening statement that the act had
been committed while Charles was suffering from delusions, and that he
had entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, at which Charles
showed annoyance, especially when his counsel referred to delusions
and subnormal intelligence. The defendant, however, remained silent.
His counsel said that Charles had contended that he shot Mr. Jensen
six times in the back of the head when Mr. Jensen had launched an
attack at him. (There is in the law a theory of imperfect self-defense, whereby, even though a defendant is not entitled legally to an assertion of self-defense as the initial aggressor who has not made a clear and unequivocal retreat from the aggression, a jury can find that the homicide is reduced in degree by an act of aggression by the victim to which the defendant was responding immediately at the time of the homicide—even if such a theory, especially when dependent solely on statements of the accused, is always an extreme long shot when the means of commission of the homicide is, as in the instant case, several gunshots to the head, leaving no room, even assuming the truth of the accused's contentions, for an unarmed victim to do more than effect token, non-lethal resistance to his own imminent death—much as the last intended victim of the rampage had managed in Wyoming to wrestle the rifle away from Charles, though it turned out that he had exhausted his ammunition on his last victim, a traveling salesman who had been sleeping in his car.) The prosecution alleged that the killing occurred
after Mr. Starkweather had directed Mr. Jensen and his girlfriend
into an abandoned storm cellar after the couple had picked up Charles
and Caril after their car had become mired in mud at a nearby farm,
where it was contended, though not mentioned by the prosecutor in his opening statement, that Charles had committed his fourth slaying
of January, that of a farmer whom Charles knew. As Charles had left
the courtroom for lunch, he saw a photographer for station KIOA of
Des Moines crouched down to obtain a close-up picture, prompting
Charles to swing his free left hand and knock the camera against the
photographer's forehead, although not injuring him. It may be time to
kick young Charles in the head, as, besides being a dirty little punk
murderer, he had a bad attitude. Of course, it probably did not
ostensibly hurt his reluctant plea of insanity. Was it not perfectly
sane to kill 11 people for no good reason? (Our suggestion becomes a little eerie
In Catlettsburg, Ky., the mayor said that they were in good shape now, as the town of 4,000 prepared to dig out of mud and silt left by the overflow of two swollen rivers, the Big Sandy and the Ohio, which had risen nearly six feet beyond flood stage the previous day, but had begun to recede after nightfall. Nearby Maysville, secured behind a new flood wall, reported that a crest of 58 feet, 8 feet above flood stage, had been expected this date. Crests were expected at Cincinnati the following day and at Louisville the following Monday. A small community, Springdale, a few miles east of Maysville, had become almost an isolated island the previous night as water closed the only road leading to it. Residents had been able to enter and leave, however, via the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad line leading to the town, with bread having to be delivered by boat.
Julian Scheer of The News reports that E. McA. Currie, a former Charlotte Mayor for one term just before World War II and judge, had been named chairman of the county Democratic executive committee during the afternoon, defeating Dr. E. A. Beaty of Davidson College, a surprise nominee of the chairman, with the vote having been by acclamation. Mr. Currie was the candidate of the so-called "old guard" element.
John Borchert of The News reports that Donald Christie would leave the Charlotte Central YMCA for a position in Pittsburgh the following month. Recently, the YMCA board of directors had given him an unanimous vote of confidence and esteem, and the board chairman said that they were sorry to see him go. He had been in the position since June, 1952. He said that in his new position he would be, in effect, managing a hotel, running a restaurant and also handling all the activities of a full YMCA program, that the operation in Pittsburgh was one of the largest YMCA's in the country, consisting of a 16-story building with a $620,000 budget.
On the editorial page,"The Tax Cut Should Be Substantial" finds that there was an increasingly grim inevitability about the process of the President and his Administration in moving closer to proposing a tax cut to Congress, with the President's scouts sampling Congressional sentiment, collecting ammunition from economists in and out of the Government, and putting up trial balloons of various types.
It finds it a tragedy, however, that such a solution was coming, in the words of one Washington pundit, "almost for want of anything better to do." The President and the Treasury did not want a tax cut if they could possibly avoid it, and had delayed a final decision on the basis that the recession appeared to be "flattening out", as the President continually was saying. But Government economists, including members of the Council of Economic Advisors, were expressing concern about an even sharper downturn.
It finds it reasonable to assume that if a tax cut was to have any potent effect, it ought come early rather than late, before the contraction of production and incomes began to feed upon themselves. That view had been stated by no less of an expert than Dr. Arthur Burns, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, who had said that a tax cut "is only a good device to fight a mild recession while confidence is still strong."
It finds that to delay the decision was actually to make the decision that a tax cut was necessary. An erosion of confidence was already underway, impacted by mounting unemployment and the large number of recent receiverships. Logic required the Administration's support of a tax cut at present, but only if it was substantial enough and meaningful enough to have an effect on the economy as a whole. It finds that the Government could not throw the American businessmen and people a mere bone and expect to solve an economic crisis of growing seriousness. An empty political gesture of keeping people happy until the midterm elections would not suffice. Neither would a scheme designed to benefit a single group or class. The tax cut would have to apply to corporations and to individuals and be big enough to have a substantial impact.
Yet, few politicians of any influence had thus far recommended any such plan and most of the proposals thus far had been lackluster, vote-catching baubles with little or no hope of curbing anything except the opposition party's appetite for power. It concludes that if no one in Washington was willing to go the whole way, then the idea of a tax cut might as well be abandoned, that a meaningless reduction would not be worth the paper on which the legislation would ultimately be written.
"The Senate Loses a Courageous Voice" laments the retirement of Senator Ralph Flanders of Vermont, who had once been called a "senile old man" by the late Senator McCarthy, after Senator Flanders had taken his stand on the Senate floor against the Senator from Wisconsin, stating in part: "In very truth the world seems to be mobilizing for the great battle of Armageddon. Now is a crisis in the age-long warfare between God and the devil for the souls of men. In this battle of the age-long war, what is the part played by the junior Senator from Wisconsin? He dons his war paint. He goes into his war dance. He emits his war whoops. He goes forth to battle and proudly returns with the scalp of a pink Army dentist."
It indicates that largely as a result of the Senator's prodding, a committee had been appointed to investigate various charges against Senator McCarthy, a committee composed of Senators who, like Senator Flanders, had been little known nationally and who had no taste for grabbing of headlines. On their recommendation, the Senate had voted 67 to 22 to censure Senator McCarthy for his conduct. (That committee had included prominently Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina during his first year in the Senate.) The censure had been enough to remove the juice from the "ism" in McCarthyism.
Although Senator Flanders had been known as a liberal, he had once said that conservatism was "concerned with preserving institutions." It indicates that history would show that he had played a courageous role in preserving the honor and respect of the Senate as an institution. It adds that it was not an obituary for Senator Flanders, but merely a respectful response to the "senile old man's" announcement that he was quitting the Senate in November to see more of the world and catch up on some things he had put aside.
"Keeping Secrets in 212 Words or Less" indicates that gobbledygook had finally triumphed over all comers, reminding that Senator Arthur Watkins of Utah had discovered a tortuous 212-word sentence in the Government's newest income tax instructions the prior March and had offered a copy of Simplified English to anyone who could say the same more clearly and more briefly. There had been more than 600 entries, but none had actually been successful in reducing the gobble.
It finds that Senator Watkins ought
to have known better, that the IRS always had the last word on
everything and that complete clarity had never interested the Federal
Government very much. It recalls that the Federal Security Agency,
presently HEW
"In order to be fully insured,
an individual must have earned $50 or more in covered employment for
as many quarters of coverage as half the calendar quarters elapsing
between 1936 and the quarter in which he reaches age 65 or dies,
whichever first occurs."
That had driven citizens mad for seven years, as nothing had been done about it until one person had written back: "I am no longer in covered employment. I have an outside job now."
You think that was maddening, what about the fact that Paladin done shot the boy in the arm who had sung his theme song? How is he now going to play the gitar?
A piece from the Arkansas Gazette, titled "Any Logs Left?" indicates that Norbert Laroche, the hermit of Newport, had announced his intention of leaving Arkansas, presumably for a state more well supplied with undisturbed hollow logs. It questions who could blame him, as he was disturbed by hunters who reported his old abode and manner of living and had been arrested for vagrancy when it was obvious he had a roof over his head in the form of the hollow log, as well as a means of support, a sack of overripe vegetables.
But the worst of it was, from any hermit's viewpoint, that a promotion-minded appliance dealer in Newport had hauled the Laroche log into his store for advertising purposes and promised to equip it with everything from air-conditioning to door chimes. Other Newport businesses had also keyed their advertising to the same theme.
Mr. Laroche had come to Arkansas because he wanted solitude and the opportunity to do some clear thinking. Thus, it had to seem most inappropriate that his expedition had now ended in a sales promotion scheme. It questions how Henry David Thoreau might have reacted had he found himself mixed up in a ranch-type development at Walden Pond.
It wishes Mr. Laroche well as he trudged northward. "Somewhere there must be a bigger and better hollow log beyond the notice, if not the jurisdiction, of the authorities and the salesmen."
Drew Pearson indicates that at a private luncheon between former Secretary of State Dean Acheson and a group of Democratic Senators, the latter had learned that if Mr. Acheson were Secretary at present, he would follow practically the same policies as Secretary Dulles. Mr. Acheson had provided some of the evidence for that conclusion during a closed-door meeting of the Democratic advisory committee when he had balked at a proposal by Governor Averell Harriman of New York to change the wording of Mr. Acheson's Democratic policy statement on foreign affairs. Adlai Stevenson, another member of that committee, had also wanted to change the wording, but Mr. Acheson had been adamant about not doing so.
The Senators who had invited Mr. Acheson to lunch included Albert Gore of Tennessee, Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania, William Proxmire of Wisconsin, Frank Church of Idaho and the unofficial senator from Alaska, Ernest Gruening. The Senators had been surprised when Mr. Acheson displayed some bitterness at his old friend, George Kennan, whom he had recommended for the post of Ambassador to Moscow and who had been the original author of the American policy of Soviet "containment". The latter had been the Acheson-Truman policy of building American bases and a NATO wall around the Soviets to block further expansion. Mr. Kennan, however, now advocated coexistence with Russia, having indicated that conditions had changed since the time when he had recommended a tough, uncompromising policy against Russia. He had also favored a demilitarized zone in Central Europe, in which there would be no missile bases, either U.S. or Soviet. Mr. Acheson had told the Senators that he was quite opposed to a demilitarized zone and also appeared bitter toward Mr. Kennan.
Mr. Acheson had told of how he had attended a meeting of Arab U.N. delegates whom the State Department had invited to a country club near New York, Mr. Acheson speaking in glowing terms of a new era of prosperity and peace in the Middle East, which could be obtained by rebuilding the famous irrigation works on the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Mr. Acheson had told the Senators how he had given the Arab leaders a picture of the good life ahead, had told of the desire of the U.S. Government to bring happiness to the Arab world, of plans to send in American capital and the great future of the Arab people through the development of that irrigation project, implying that they would have to forget their bitterness toward Israel. The Arab leaders had listened, transfixed on every word, according to Mr. Acheson, and after he had finished, they had congratulated him, telling him that it was the most wonderful speech they had ever heard, that he presented a great idea and that they were going to get to work on it as soon as they got the problem with Israel settled.
The State Department, which had been doing a good job of getting visitors acquainted with the U.S., needed to keep an eye, according to Mr. Pearson, on some of its unofficial diplomats inside the country, as they seemed determined that foreign visitors not get to know the American people. In Prescott, Ariz., the State Department and the Governmental Affairs Institute were represented by Lela Rosch of the Business and Professional Women. She appeared to believe that foreign visitors ought see the Grand Canyon but not get to know the American people.
Doris Fleeson indicates that the secrecy of the Atomic Energy Commission regarding its policies and purposes was again proving to be self-defeating. AEC chairman Lewis Strauss and his principal scientific advisor, Dr. Edward Teller, had insisted that testing of nuclear weapons had to be continued to develop the still-elusive "clean" bomb. To critics of that testing they had cried "unsafe", arguing that detection of Soviet nuclear testing was unreliable.
She finds that they were now losing that argument to another expert of stature at least equal to that of Dr. Teller, Dr. Hans Bethe, the latter being an advisor to Dr. James Killian, scientific advisor to the President.
While Admiral Strauss had a valid and compelling reason for pushing for a "clean" bomb, he had thus far been unwilling to share it with either the Congress or the people. The reason for the urgency was known by the Russians, that a "clean" bomb was vital to the development of an anti-missile missile which could safely be used over friendly territory. Present bombs, with their large amount of fallout, could not be used that way without as much danger to the West as to the menaces they were designed to counteract. By failing to impart the whole truth, the Strauss-Teller forces had allowed to become current a number of false impressions, one of which was that somehow, some way, the proposition was to launder nuclear warfare for the benefit of the nation's enemies as well as for Americans and allies, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Denial of territory to an enemy had always been a valid military objective in any warfare by any nation. Nuclear fallout had provided the military with a weapon which could not only deny territory but could maintain it in that status for years. It explained the argument between Admiral Strauss and Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, the latter proclaiming that the military was actually "dirtying up" existing stockpiles of nuclear bombs. Admiral Strauss had responded with technicalities which had obfuscated the issue, with the net result that the discussion was being regarded as only another dreary chapter of the endless feud between the two strong-willed men.
It had become obvious that the development of defensive nuclear weapons was the principal preoccupation of the AEC at present, and it was apparent from the testimony of Admiral Strauss and others that the job of perfecting a "clean" bomb, vital to the anti-missile missile, was a long way from being accomplished. That fact would properly account for the AEC chairman's messianic attitude toward continued testing to achieve that end.
The question which had puzzled Washington was why the Admiral would prefer to lose the argument rather than be candid about his actual objective. Ms. Fleeson indicates that he could not be so naïve as to expect that other nations would believe the U.S. would not use the ultimate weapon to secure its own survival.
Joseph Alsop indicates that Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson and most of the members of the Labor Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, were presently working hard to report out a labor reform bill within ten days. The Committee would be hard put to draft a measure of such consequence in that short time period. But it was virtually certain that a bill would reach the Senate floor soon and also that the bill would be taken up as soon as it was ready, with the body likely to vote for it by a large majority.
But it was not certain whether the labor reform bill which the Senate would approve would be extreme and punitive or moderate and constructive, with the betting being that it would be in favor of moderation and constructiveness. Yet that was the issue on which the old conservative Republican-Southern Democratic coalition could most easily be revivified.
That development, until recently unforeseen, had to be largely credited to Senate Minority Leader William Knowland of California. Senate action on labor union reform had become possible before the latter's attempt to transform the bill, regulating industrial pension and welfare funds, into a bill regulating labor practices, but his surprise had forced a commitment to report a bill later, being the only way to ensure defeat of his series of amendments.
Mr. Alsop regards it as indicative of the state of Senate sentiment on the subject of labor union reform. The key vote which had defeated the first amendment offered by Senator Knowland to the pension and welfare fund bill had been by a vote of 52 to 37, with ten Republicans and 43 Democrats voting against the amendment. But in the total of 43 Democrats, there were least 12 and probably as many as 16 Southerners who would have liked to have voted with Senator Knowland, but had voted against the amendment only because Senator Johnson had promised them a later opportunity to vote on the same issue in a more orderly and well-considered manner.
Mr. Alsop indicates that the truth was that the revelations of the investigating committee headed by Senator John McClellan of Arkansas had filled the whole Congress, and especially the Senate, with a deep impatience. The actions of the more outrageous labor unions, such as the Teamsters headed by Jimmy Hoffa, had immensely harmed the entire labor movement, with there being the same desire to do something about it which had existed in the old days at the end of the Depression, when the actions of the more outrageous blue sky operators had discredited whole sections of the business community. The result earlier had been the passage of such laws as the Securities and Exchange Act.
Unlike the brokers, investment bankers, utility tycoons and the rest in the early 1930's, most labor leaders at present realized that corrective legislation was inevitable, with the more far-sighted leaders, headed by Walter Reuther of the UAW and Jim Carey of the Electrical Workers, even admitting that it might be desirable.
The AFL-CIO, headed by George Meany and Al Hayes of the Machinists, was ready to fight to the death against any legislation, at least until Senator Knowland had sprung his surprise. But they had then been called to the office of Senator Johnson and confronted with the alternatives, that being to accept the amendments of Senator Knowland now or have a bill later, getting them thereby to agree reluctantly to cooperate on a bill.
The betting was in favor of a moderate and constructive bill because it now appeared likely that two key Republicans, Senators Irving Ives of New York and John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky, plus two key Democrats, Senators McClellan and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, would be able to agree on what was needed to be done. If such an agreement were achieved, the bill would ensure honest management of union funds and would include certain provisions desired by the vast majority of labor, such as condemnation of "sweetheart contracts" between businessmen and corrupt labor union leaders, and also include controversial "union democracy" provisions at least requiring all labor unions to hold elections of officers at reasonable intervals and with a secret ballot.
Senator McClellan's own proposals went much further than those, and he was the bellwether for other Southerners. If he joined the others in backing a moderate bill, the same array of Senators which had defeated the amendment of Senator Knowland could probably be reconstituted, in which case the more violent amendments of the labor-haters would be defeated on the floor. As it happened, Senator McClellan was a wise man, knowing that the type of bill which Senators Kennedy, Ives and Cooper could and would accept was also the most likely type to pass the House and become law. That was the major incentive to compromise.
A letter writer from Lenoir indicates that there were a number of things wrong with the elaborate and colorful proposal to change the state's court structure and judicial system, finding that the proposal by State Senator J. Spencer Bell's committee for three court divisions to clean up the hodgepodge of the lower courts, while good in the latter respect, ultimately was proposing a monarchical type government, that the final judicial power be vested in one man, the State Chief Justice, and also disallowing the people any longer to vote for initial appointments of Superior Court judges, to be appointed under the proposal only by the Governor, subject to reconfirmation later by the public after a certain number of years. He believes that if the people allowed the Governor and the Chief Justice to control justice in the state, there would no longer be a democracy. He believes that it meant that, when boiled to cases, a person or firm would not have a chance in court against a rich and politically influential company which had helped put the Governor in office. He believed that Superior Court judges had nearly unlimited power as they could keep deserving cases from reaching a jury by their interpretation of the law, giving them power over the cases coming before them.
What the letter writer appears not to understand is that the latter power of which he makes mention had existed in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence for centuries, extending back to English law, which provided the foundation for most of American law. Such devices as motions for summary judgment or, after hearing a plaintiff's case, for directed verdict, have always been within the law, thus taking away cases from jury consideration which are deemed to lack a key element for there being no competent evidence establishing that element which a fact-finder could reasonably consider or where there was no contest between the sides on particular issues. Such decisions by the trial court are always subject to review by the appellate courts.
It is the nature of the beast, and while, as Justice Felix Frankfurter would indicate in his concurrence in the Little Rock case the following September, affirming the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in its reversal of the District Court order which had delayed for two and half years further effort at integration of Central High School, judges sometimes err, it is impossible to achieve absolute perfection of justice, as it is ultimately in the hands of humans to determine, whether of judges or juries. Juries, after all, as we know from history, are just as apt to be swayed by sentiment and prejudice from one side or the other, as any judge might be by the factors raised by the letter writer. Every case is different on its facts and there is no law or set of laws which can be devised in advance to meet every possible nuance of fact in a given setting, so that a certain amount of interpretation is always required to determine how the existing law governs the facts and which among competing material facts deserve the most credit in the eyes of the fact-finder. Consequently, there is no perfect system of selection of judges which insulates absolutely against bias of one sort or another, everyone having some biases, with judges being no exception.
The hope always is to select persons, whether for the bench or a jury, who can honestly set aside personal biases and judge a particular case only on the facts and the law applicable to the facts, and adjudge competing facts on the basis of honest criteria, such as internal factual or logical consistency or lack thereof, and not on criteria extraneous to the facts and testimony, such as whether the defendant scratches his or her head inappropriately or has dirty fingernails or whether the prosecutor exhibits a nervous twitch or appears too slick to be considered genuine.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.