The Charlotte News
Thursday, June 26, 1958
FOUR EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that the Supreme Court this date had been asked by two attorneys to hold a special session to rule on the U.S. District Court order of the prior Saturday suspending school desegregation in Little Rock, Ark., for 2 1/2 years. The attorneys asked the Court to hear the arguments immediately and overturn the order, contending that it was directly in conflict with the Court's decisions in school integration cases, requiring desegregation "with all deliberate speed". One of the attorneys represented black pupils in Little Rock and the other attorney, from New York, represented the NAACP. The petition noted that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis had already been asked to stay the judge's ruling, but that no action had yet been taken. The attorneys suggested that the high Court permit bypassing of the Circuit Court and consider the case promptly so that the issue could be settled before the start of the new school year in September. The Court was scheduled to adjourn for the summer after the following Monday and would not be in regular session again until the first Monday in October. The petition sought that the Court either extend its present term or hold a special term to hear the case. (As indicated, the Eighth Circuit would reverse the District Court decision in late August, and the Supreme Court would then hear the case and affirm that reversal in late September, ordering that the previous District Court orders be reinstated, ordering continuation of desegregation per the original plan put forth in 1956 by the Little Rock School Board, and reaffirmed just prior to the start of the 1957 school year.)
Former publisher of the now-defunct Boston Post, John Fox, had testified this date before the House subcommittee investigating the Goldfine-Adams matter, indicating that "powerful and malign influences" had been exerted against him from the Federal Government with the object of eliminating the newspaper. He said that the Federal forces "were not unconnected with the Boston Herald Traveler Corp. and Mr. Goldfine. The subcommittee had allowed his testimony to be conducted in public despite objections from Mr. Goldfine, the Boston industrialist and friend of White House chief of staff Sherman Adams. Mr. Goldfine had contended through his lawyers that Mr. Fox's testimony could be expected to defame him and he asked that it be taken in executive session. The subcommittee indicated that Mr. Fox would provide notice if he were about to defame someone during his testimony and that in that event, the subcommittee would take the testimony in closed session. Mr. Fox had read a 3,000-word prepared statement, indicating that he had begun to be aware of what he called "powerful and malign influences" by a department of the Federal Government in 1954, when it appeared he was overcoming legal difficulties blocking a Boston parking development in which he was interested, saying he did not know the source of the influences, "unless their object was to eliminate the Boston Post," which he said was the only major newspaper in the United States which had supported former President Truman in 1948. He said that the pressures resulted in forced liquidation of about 13 million dollars in bank loans which had been well-secured by marketable securities, and that in July, 1956, after he had paid off all except one of the banks, the IRS, without warning, had imposed income tax liens on him and his wife totaling about 1.6 million dollars. He said that the following year, the Government had admitted in a Tax Court case "that approximately 87 percent of the taxes, interest and penalties that were even then still assessed against us, should be dismissed." He said that the two revenue agents concerned with the case had subsequently resigned and that in connection with the case involving $100,000 worth of whiskey on which he held warehouse receipts, the regional commissioner of the IRS for the New England states had said that he wanted to "Get Fox", and had also admitted to Mr. Fox that his orders were coming from Washington, but had refused to say from whom.
Before the Senate Select Committee investigating misconduct of unions and management, publisher Max Raddock had invoked the Fifth Amendment this date and refused to answer questions about the Indiana highway scandals and Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa, despite having been basically cooperative in answering questions the previous day.
Additional U.S. loans for the economic development of neutral Afghanistan appeared assured this date as Prime Minister Sardar Mohammed Daud neared the end of his official visit with the President.
In Saigon, the Indochinese neighbors, Cambodia and South Vietnam, had become embroiled in a new border dispute this date, with each young nation charging invasion by the other.
In Beirut, it was reported that hard fighting had raged for more than four hours this date in the port of Tripoli and that at least six persons had been killed and 20 injured. Omar Karomi, a rebel leader, had told the Associated Press by telephone that the fighting had erupted at noon and had quickly spread to the central section of the city, reaching a climax about three hours later, then had slacked off but that shooting was still occurring at 4:00 p.m., that security forces had shelled rebel positions and destroyed one building. He denied Cairo Radio reports that strong rebel reinforcements were marching on Tripoli, saying that he knew of no such reinforcements coming that way. He said that four or five people were killed in Tripoli almost every day and about 51 injured. He was the brother of Tripoli's rebel leader, Raschid Karomi. Tripoli was the city where the Lebanese rebellion had begun 48 days earlier. Fighting in the city had taken place all the previous night and an Army communiqué said that it had started when rebels opened fire on Army positions and civilians. The rebels said that the Government forces had employed armored cars to blast rebel roadblocks in the city. Night skirmishes were also reported from the Bekaa Valley in central Lebanon. Beirut remained quiet at mid-morning following several hours of firing the previous day. Pro-Western President Camille Chamoun, whose ouster was being sought by the rebels, had predicted Tuesday that leaders of the rebellion against the Government would launch a full-scale assault within 48 hours. In south Lebanon, a landmine had blown up a U.N. patrol jeep, slightly wounding an Indian observer, with another observer in the jeep uninjured. The injured man was the third U.N. representative wounded since the observer group had arrived in Lebanon two weeks earlier. U.N. Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold had flown back to New York with an urgent request from Premier Sami Solh for the U.N. to send an emergency force to Lebanon. An unofficial truce had prevailed during the Secretary-General's one-week visit. Premier Solh had asked Dr. Hammarskjold for an armed international force to replace the present corps of less than 100 observers and to seal Lebanon's borders against aid and reinforcement to the rebels from the neighboring Syrian province of the United Arab Republic, of which Gamal Abdel Nasser was the Premier.
The Civil Aeronautics Administration said this date that the military services had agreed to defer their plans to make full use of CAA air traffic control facilities.
In Limestone, Maine, a huge B-52 jet bomber had exploded on a parking apron at Loring Air Force Base this date and was destroyed in a roaring inferno, with no one aboard the plane and the Air Force indicating that it believed there had been no casualties.
In Walls, in the Shetland Islands, it was reported that a seaman from a Soviet trawler had fled from a ship, escaped 30 pursuers in a chase across the seaside moors and asked Britain for asylum this date. The man was an Estonian, who had rowed ashore the previous night in a small boat from a vessel in the Soviet herring fleet fishing off the west coast of the Shetlands. A posse of crewmates had followed him in an invasion of British soil. The refugee sprinted across the moors until he reached a small farmhouse, where he collapsed with exhaustion and was given shelter, his pursuers failing to find him. The Estonian turned himself into the Lerwick police station during the morning and asked permission to remain in Britain, saying that if he were taken back to the fleet, he would be killed. Three Soviet trawler captains stalked into the Lerwick City Hall and demanded a chance to talk to the seaman but their request had been refused. In London, a Foreign Office spokesman, when asked whether there would be a protest to Moscow over the apparent disregard of British sovereignty, replied that he thought they would want to establish the facts, which was being done by the Home Office, an official of which said that a decision in the case would be made after the seaman was questioned.
In New York, a woman was quoted as saying "the world is against me. Take care of my dog." She then plunged to her death a few moments afterward from a Manhattan hotel window early this date.
In Guthrie, Okla., it was reported that hundreds of residents of the town had fled from their homes early this date as waters from Cottonwood Creek had spread over sections of the town.
In Concord, N.C., Bedford Black, a candidate in the disputed Cabarrus County House election, had filed a formal protest this date listing 22 election irregularities, just before recount of the May 28 ballots had started. The incumbent, Eugene Bost, and Mr. Black had each polled 5,450 votes in the official count in the Democratic primary, resulting in the State Board of Elections ordering the county board to recount the ballots. The county board had received the complaint, then put it aside and began the recount, which was expected to last throughout this date and possibly into the following day.
In Charlotte, a man had received serious injuries the previous night when an automobile tire he was inflating had blown up in his face. City police officers had identified the injured man, who was taken to Good Samaritan Hospital, where he was being examined for a possible skull fracture, a fractured arm, and severe cuts about his chin and the back of his head. Hospital authorities said that his condition was only fair and that he would be X-rayed for other possible injuries this date. Police said that the man had been inflating a tire at a service station on Beatty's Ford Road when the accident had occurred the previous evening. Workers at the station had not witnessed the accident.
Bill Hughes of The News reports that six cars had brought traffic to a brief standstill in downtown Charlotte this date, that inside the six convertibles had been 12 beauties who would stop traffic anywhere even if they were not in a parade, being the 11 candidates for the State Dairy Queen title, along with Connie Hobby of New Bern, the current titleholder. They had arrived in Charlotte for the first State Dairy Queen pageant held locally. The convertible parade had taken them from the Hotel Charlotte, headquarters for the event, to a fashion show at Efird's Department Store, where they viewed the huge dairy display. This date, the contestants were engaged in sightseeing and fun and the following day the judging would begin. They would attend a luncheon at Carmel Country Club, at which Thomas L. Robinson, president of the Chamber of Commerce and publisher of The News, would be master of ceremonies. The chairman of "June Is Dairy Month" would welcome the group. Earle Edwards, head football coach at N.C. State, the state chairman of "June Is Dairy Month", would speak. Got milk? We make no comment on the photograph above the piece other than to say that the two young ladies had quite a cone and scoops between them.
In Philadelphia, it was reported that two professors from Cornell University had begun to argue whether coffee was better cooled by milk or cream, and whether it was more quickly cooled if cream or milk was injected immediately or after waiting a bit, their debate having been so engrossing that two seniors had resolved to get at the scientific truth about it, producing a 78-page paper, complete with formulae, graphs and higher mathematics. A brief abstract of their findings said that coffee cooled faster if the drinker waited a little while to pour in the milk or the cream. The students found that under laboratory conditions, a cup of coffee took 425 seconds to cool enough to drink, provided the milk or cream was put in at once, but if the drinker waited 310 seconds before adding the milk or cream, the coffee cooled a minute and a half faster. When the milk or cream was placed in the coffee, it took the edge off its heat, but only for a moment or so and then there was that much more liquid to cool. But by waiting until the temperature dropped somewhat, the cooling process was hastened. The students acknowledged that to some, the rapid cooling of coffee bordered on sacrilege. In Britain, the milk was heated before it went into the coffee, and the philosopher, in any land, stood aghast at the guzzler of diluted brew which had lost both warmth and flavor. The two student researchers had titled their thesis, "The Coffee Cup Problem". The American Institute of Chemical Engineers, holding its golden jubilee convention in Philadelphia, had given the paper first prize in its international competition for student papers. Unless you are dealing with some pretension to coffee obtained in a stimulus emergency from the likes of McDonald's, you want to keep your latte reasonably hot. Regardless, with El Presidente's brilliant tariff policy, it has gotten so that you can no longer afford a decent cup of coffee, whether cool or not, unless maybe you want to settle for dishwater variety. Good work there, stupid.
In Fribourg, Switzerland, on a hot afternoon the previous month, a judge had dozed in court while four men were being tried on burglary charges, the judge, nevertheless, and the other two judges on the court, having later sentenced the gang to between two and six years at hard labor. All defendants had been granted a new trial the previous day on a decision by the State Supreme Court that a trial before a sleeping judge was unfair, even if the other two judges had remained awake. The judge had been fined 100 francs, the equivalent of $23, for his negligence.
The winners of the previous week's Social Security Game of the newspaper had claimed the entire $100 awarded weekly, whereas in the first two weeks of the contest, four winners had not recognized their numbers when printed in the newspaper to collect the $10 second prizes before the following Tuesday deadline. The first prize was $50 and there were five $10 winners as well. The only catch is that you have your Social Security number printed in the newspaper, for any Tom, Dick, Harry, or Chuck and Caril, to take and use for whatever purpose they might have in mind.
On the editorial page, "The Voices of Silence Are Powerful" indicates that the embarrassed silence in the City Council the previous day had spoken louder than words, being, in effect, a plea of nolo contendere to the charge that Judge Basil Boyd of the City Recorder's Court enjoyed the benign protection of the Council's majority. In pretending not to notice the mess in the court, the Council might be cherishing the wistful hope that no one else would notice either.
But if so, it was mistaken as through four weeks of nearly daily scandals, the people of the city had slowly disabused themselves of cherished delusions about the cleanliness of municipal functions. They had repeatedly seen the bitter fruits of indecision and inaction and had listened with astonishment while Judge Boyd explained that he did not know what was going on in his court and therefore believed he was not responsible for the mess.
The people had waited for a single word of reproof or any indication that the Council's majority was neither morally blind nor numbly callous. But the people had not been reassured. It finds it bad enough to have a mess in the court, but worse to have condoned conditions which had permitted the mess to develop. If the Council was indifferent, the people were not, as they cared deeply about how their courts were run.
It concludes that they would not be silent and neither would the newspaper, until the mess was cleaned up and the city again had a court system of which it could be proud.
"A Salute from the Valley of Humility" indicates that 36-year old Ernest Hollings could now pause to bandage his campaign wounds and receive the congratulations of sideliners from North Carolina on his victory in the South Carolina Democratic gubernatorial primary, essentially election to the governorship in the one-party state at the time.
For a young political warrior, he had battled with the knowing finesse and style of a veteran, perhaps the greatest victory for the "angry young men" of Southern politics since Frank Clement had won the governorship in Tennessee in 1953.
The bitter personal in-fighting during the second primary campaign might have shocked North Carolinians accustomed to somewhat sissified contests for governor in the Valley of Humility. But some South Carolinians with long political memories could call the Hollings-Russell race sissified, remembering, with rollicking good humor, the campaigns of Ben Tillman of that state.
One favorite story regarding Mr. Tillman had related to the 1890 gubernatorial primary, when his opponent, a man of aristocratic bearing, was sitting on the platform while "Pitchfork" Ben was speaking, when suddenly, halfway through the speech, Mr. Tillman halted, walked over to his opponent and knocked him out of his chair, explaining to the delighted audience: "I just couldn't stand how he looks."
Another story had to do with the heckling which Mr. Tillman had received during one of his campaign speeches from a man who had publicly threatened to "burn him down" if he ever came to town. Mr. Tillman had paused and said with ominous politeness: "My friend, you have the advantage of me. You know my name. I do not know yours. What is your name?" The heckler had replied that his name was Calhoun, to which Mr. Tillman replied: "Aw, hell! All the Calhouns I ever heard of who were worth a damn have been dead nearly 50 years." There had been no more heckling.
It indicates that if the Hollings-Russell race was spirited, it was merely an extension of a spirited tradition. Mr. Hollings had won a significant victory in a fast political league and despite his youth, he had been well trained for his new post during his term as Lt. Governor in the current Administration of George Bell Timmerman, Jr. It indicates that all Southerners would wish him well during an era which would require unusually wise and courageous leadership in every state house in the South.
Mr. Hollings, after serving a term as Governor, would go on to be elected to the Senate in 1966 and serve in that capacity for nearly four decades, perhaps most memorable for his deep, sonorous voice, somewhat reminiscent of a fire-and-brimstone preacher, though his politics were primarily moderate. His run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1984, however, would prove unsuccessful.
"The Fruits of His Enterprise Live On" indicates that at 52, Ed M. Anderson was dead and North Carolina journalism had suddenly lost another of its stalwarts.
He had left behind a remarkable record of achievement as a western North Carolina newspaper publisher and radio executive, with his contributions to his state and to the hill country he loved forever etched in the minds of many North Carolinians. Mr. Anderson had started with little more than a bundle of ambition and in a relatively short time, had been publishing five weekly newspapers and operating four radio stations. His leadership in a highly competitive and usually demanding profession was accorded national recognition. He was elected to the presidency of the National Editorial Association in 1954 and a dozen years earlier had served as president of the North Carolina Press Association, also for a time having been a director of the North Carolina Association of Broadcasters.
He contributed to the progress of western North Carolina and, consequently, had contributed to the well-being of the whole state. "The fruits of his enterprise are being enjoyed today by most of us. They will be enjoyed for a very long time."
"Look Out! The Philistines Are Coming" indicates that Dégas, Gauguin, Manet, Renoir, Titian, Botticelli, Rubens, Watteau, Fragonard, Courbet, Matisse, El Greco, and Modigliani, plus every other painter who had ever produced the female form on canvas in the nude, could rest easy at present, as the Government, headed by an amateur painter, of all people, had apparently decided that a picture of a nude was not inherently horrid.
The President had received a complaint about an etching of a semi-nude woman displayed in the American exhibit at the Brussels World's Fair, and amid roars of laughter from the international art world, the USIA head, George V. Allen, had been ordered to check on it personally. He had found that the complaint was true, reporting back that there was an Indian woman lying in a hammock, unclad. But Mr. Allen had added sensibly: "I would not recommend that we make any change in that any more than I would recommend that we make changes in our school books that have thousands of etchings of this kind."
There had been sighs of relief in the European art world and it suggests that if the President's prudery were to become official policy, Washington might make foreign aid contingent on the employment of cartoonists who would draw panties and bras on all of the girls in the masterpieces everywhere.
They probably should start with the front page this date.
Speaking of objet d'art
A piece from the Richmond Times-Dispatch, titled "On with the Shoat!" indicates that E. H. Watson, the tailor for Prince Philip, had something when he suggested a lightweight cross between a coat and a shirt for men's hot weather wear, having a shirt collar, stiff cuffs and two cross pockets, worn outside the trousers.
It finds that suffering males might differ with the British tailor's specifications for the proposed new hybrid, but that they would hail the suggestion in principle. Sport shirts, which were having growing acceptance, even for business wear, in some parts of the country, still were frowned upon by many, except as casual wear. The need was for a hot-weather garment less torturous than a coat but more formal than a sport shirt.
It finds a little discouraging the proposal of Mr. Watson that the innovation have a shirt collar as presumably that would require a necktie, but some compromise was necessary to get the garment accepted as de rigueur in the best circles.
It proposes that the name for the new shirt coat be perhaps "shoat", despite the word having another meaning. It concludes that if only Mr. Watson would turn out one of the new creations and Prince Philip would wear it the next time he escorted his wife to the races, the way would be established toward emancipation of sweltering males.
Drew Pearson indicates that beneath the Republican gloom over the disclosures regarding Sherman Adams, some Republicans were secretly gloating over his predicament. One was Renah Camalier, whom Mr. Adams had squeezed out as a District of Columbia commissioner, having summoned him to the White House and frostily notified him that the President wanted his resignation. Mr. Camalier had then said that the President was only 100 feet from them and that if Mr. Adams would go to him and tell him the story, and he then asked him to resign, he would tender his resignation.
Another Republican who had been bitten by Mr. Adams was New York Congressman Pat Kearney, whom Mr. Adams had once called in to ask him how he would like to be the veterans administrator, which he had accepted and prepared to resign from Congress. The appointment was cleared with top New York Republicans, including former Governor Thomas Dewey and Senator Irving Ives. After a long wait for an official announcement from the White House, Mr. Kearney had phoned Mr. Adams to find out what was going on with his nomination, only to be told that he was not under consideration for the job. Later Mr. Kearney had spotted Mr. Adams at a reception and headed toward him, with his friends not liking the look he had in his eye and demanded to know what he intended to do, to which he responded, "I'm going to belt Sherman Adams." It had taken considerable dissuading to restrain him.
British and French diplomats were not letting the State Department forget the fact that they could have saved the U.S. the problem of intervention in Lebanon, provided the President had not intervened to stop the Anglo-French-Israeli fighting in Suez in early November, 1956, on the eve of the presidential election. Now, the U.S. was being drawn into the crisis to stop the spread of the power of Premier Gamal Abdel Nasser, whereas it could have sat back and let the French, British and Israeli armies do it in 1956. French and British diplomats were bitter against the U.S. following the Suez intervention and they had not forgotten it. They recalled how the President, himself, had phoned Prime Minister Anthony Eden in London and bawled him out in barrack-room language and demanded that British troops accept a ceasefire immediately. Mr. Eden had been shaken, picked up the telephone and called French Premier Guy Mollet in Paris and relayed the demand. M. Mollet had remonstrated, but finally decided that France would have to follow the British and American lead. Premier Nasser, who had been cringing in a bombproof cellar on the outskirts of Cairo, had been busy undermining American policy in the Middle East ever since. He notes that Secretary of State Dulles had been ill at the time that the President had intervened in Suez and did not participate in that decision.
Walter Lippmann posits that the President's press conference the previous week which had followed the explosion regarding Sherman Adams must have been as unpleasant as any experience he had encountered in his "charmed and lucky career". He had been in a painful dilemma as to whether to abandon a friend on whom he depended or to abandon the standard of public behavior with which he had identified himself. He had asked the country to let him evade the issue and allow Mr. Adams to stay while maintaining his reputation as a champion of the highest public virtue.
His reaction had been to hope that by making a personal declaration of his faith in Mr. Adams and his need for him, the country would overlook the whole unpleasant affair. But he had not succeeded as the "damnable hotel bills would not go away and disappear," and there was every indication that the clamor for the resignation of his chief of staff was rising and might become irresistible.
At the press conference, James Reston of the New York Times had asked the President the crucial question as to whether the rule he was applying to Mr. Adams applied also to other Federal officials, in other words, enabling them also to accept gifts from persons who had dealings with agencies over which the officials could, even if they did not and would not, exercise influence, whether it was a bribe if they exercised influence and was only a friendly gift if they did not.
The President's problem was how to save Mr. Adams without making a shambles of his standard of public propriety and virtue. As of the present, the President had hoped to solve the problem by reaffirming his moral principles, by not denying that Mr. Adams had seriously violated those principles while pleading for compassion. He had said that he expected the "highest possible standard not only of conduct but of appearance of conduct." To justify the retention of Mr. Adams, despite the bad appearance, he made what was in effect a personal plea on his own behalf, that the country provide forbearance because as President, he had such a great need for Mr. Adams.
Mr. Lippmann indicates that the conduct of Mr. Adams remained a mystery which no one had explained, but that the key to the President's reactions to his conduct was almost certainly his personal dependence on him in the conduct of the Presidency. That dependence was unprecedented in recent times. He recognizes that President Wilson had Col. House and FDR had Harry Hopkins, but neither had played a role comparable to that of Mr. Adams for President Eisenhower. Col. House did not even live in Washington but kept in touch with President Wilson by letter, telephone and periodic visits to the White House, and while his influence was considerable, his official role, apart from a certain amount of Texas politics, was that of a confidential diplomatic agent. Mr. Hopkins had an office in the White House and for a time a bedroom also, but while he intervened in many things, he was never the man who administered the Presidency, as was Mr. Adams.
Many things had combined to provide Mr. Adams his unique position. A President's duties had multiplied enormously and then coming to the office, General Eisenhower had no prior political education or training, having to have the decisions, which as President he had to make, reduced in number and greatly simplified, the task of Mr. Adams. That need had become the greater because of the President's long absences from Washington, his illnesses, and his need to economize his energy.
The idea of firing Mr. Adams had to seem therefore to the President like an appalling disruption of his personal life. He suggests that, no doubt, other men could be found who were as able and efficient, but there could be none who knew a fraction of what Mr. Adams knew about how to serve and to handle Mr. Eisenhower, himself. The President was accustomed to Mr. Adams and it might be hard for him to get used to someone else. Yet, there was no way around the dilemma he faced, having to choose either to fire him or to make do without his valuable assistance, with there being every reason to believe that he would have to reconcile himself ultimately to the idea of letting Mr. Adams go.
A letter writer from Rock Hill, S.C., indicates that he had been reading about the Sherman Adams case and the municipal scandal in Charlotte in the City Recorder's Court and was discouraged, believing that ultimately someone might be sent to jail, but he doubts it as everyone involved in the matters seemed to be able to prove that what they did was perfectly legal and thus all right. He was disturbed by the finding that apparently morality had become identical with legality. He finds it a tragic plight if the accepted standard of measurement of the integrity of a man in public life was that he kept within the letter of the law, concluding that much of the evil in the world was beyond the reach of the law.
A letter writer from Cheraw, S.C., believes that all people of the country, especially in the South, whether white or black, ought tip their hats to the U.S. District Court judge in Arkansas who had held the previous Saturday that desegregation of the schools in Little Rock ought be suspended until 1960. He thinks it about time that someone in the judicial branch had the courage to make the executive department in Washington realize it should not interfere in states' rights in dealing with local matters, as it was not its duty under the Constitution to step into state matters without being called upon by the officials of the states to do so by force, or by the Supreme Court, to restore order in a particular state. He believes that neither the judicial nor the executive branch had the authority over the Congress or state governments to operate the public schools and had no such right until an amendment was made to the Constitution to that effect. He says that it was not a democratic government when nine men appointed by the President made an unfair ruling concerning the states and their people in the operation of their schools. He says that many of the judges had never lived in most of the states where the school problems were only understood by the local people.
A letter writer indicates that on the following Saturday, the runoff primary would occur between incumbent State Senator J. Spencer Bell and State Representative Jack Love. He believes that Mr. Love had proved that power was what he sought when he had taken over the Democratic Party in his first two years as a Representative, that a political machine was not desirable in the county and that the machine could be torn apart if the people turned out in force and cast their votes for Mr. Bell.
A letter writer from Matthews indicates that as a former neighbor of Mr. Love, he had always known him to be a "fine, honest, upright citizen", always ready to work for the best interest of the people. He was sure that the voters would make no mistake in voting for him.
A letter writer indicates that the voters would elect persons to the County Board of Education and a superintendent of schools, who then selected men for the Board whom he could control instead of letting the Board control the superintendent. He finds it out of line.
A letter writer comments on an editorial of June 23 on the subject of zoning, along with other recent articles on the same subject, finding them informative to the average homeowner who suddenly found himself facing a possible change in land use in his neighborhood. He says that in his work as a real estate consultant and professional appraiser, he found many property owners who were uninformed about controls at their own disposal to protect their investments. He says that most of the local residential suburbs had been opened with proper land planning and protective covenants, but that when the development progressed to a point of individual ownerships, the responsibility for upholding the intent of those benefits transferred from the developer to the homeowners. The majority of the neighborhoods were planned to meet FHA and VA standards so that maximum long-term financing could be offered to home buyers. Often, either a salesman or the purchaser failed to consider the different levels or limits of minimum requirements, the legal protections possibly varying between adjoining subdivisions and even between different sections within a subdivision. If the minimum limits were too low, the owners might find an inferior house had adversely affected their property's value. Deed restrictions when not referred to in the blanket covenants might limit only the individual owner and his property, leaving other lands in the tract unrestricted. Marginal lots of a subdivision might be vulnerable to adverse influence, which might develop on adjoining lands, or on land on the opposite side of the street. Zoning restrictions could not be lowered or violated by mutually protective covenants, but zoning could be superimposed by proper legal restrictions for a higher use when title to the land was held under the agreed limitations. When a higher use restriction was mutually imposed by properly recorded covenants, the mere change of a zoning classification did not cancel those mutual rights and protections, provided the other landowners were alerted and demanded enforcement of their recorded restrictions.
All or part of what he says may have changed in the intervening time, and so it is best to rely only on current regulations regarding financing and current zoning ordinances in the community in relation to individual restrictive covenants. What he says, however, might at least provide a starting point for asking questions.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.