The Charlotte News

Thursday, July 31, 1958

THREE EDITORIALS

Site Ed. Note: The front page reports from London that British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had announced this date that he was calling for a special meeting of the U.N. Security Council to occur on August 12 and that he would personally attend. He told the House of Commons that he had advised Premier Nikita Khrushchev that New York, Geneva or any other place generally agreeable would be suitable as a site for the special conference regarding the Middle East crisis. He had read a text of a message which he had sent to Mr. Khrushchev this date, indicating hope that Mr. Khrushchev would also attend and that he was instructing the United Kingdom permanent representative at the U.N. to propose to the president of the Security Council the special meeting pursuant to Article 28 of the U.N. Charter. He also indicated that meanwhile, the permanent representatives ought discuss arrangement for the special meeting and decide where it would occur. He said that the conference he had in mind would allow "less formal meetings of the heads of government" to be arranged, in addition to the formal sessions of the whole 11-nation Council. Mr. Khrushchev had expressed a desire for such informal meetings of the heads of state of the major powers apart from the Council. The Prime Minister dismissed, almost contemptuously, Mr. Khrushchev's charges in his letter of the prior Monday that the British and Americans had been trying to maneuver out of the projected conference. Mr. Khrushchev had also repeated accusations that both nations were guilty of aggression in the Middle East and were planning new ventures. Mr. McMillan said: "I will not reply to its many accusations against allied policy in the Middle East. None of these has any foundation in fact."

In Beirut, it was reported that Lebanon's top soldier, General Fuad Shehab, had been elected the new president as a compromise choice to end the rebellion against the pro-Western President Camille Chamoun. The Lebanese Parliament had elected the 56-year old nonpolitical Army commander in chief on the second ballot, receiving 48 votes to seven for his only opponent. The election would not automatically solve the strife, which had been ongoing for 83 days, bringing the small country to the brink of economic ruin and resulting in the landing of 10,000 U.S. Marines in Beirut. Observers, however, believed that the General's control could provide a breathing spell during which peace and order might be restored, generating an atmosphere of hope and expectation among the Lebanese people, who had lived amid intermittent bombing and shooting for almost 3 months. Both rebels and Government supporters appeared tired of the struggle. President Chamoun's six-year term would not end until September 23, and a U.S. Embassy spokesman already had said that the election of the General as a compromise candidate between the warring factions would not, by itself, clear the way for the U.S. troops to withdraw. A withdrawal would also depend on re-establishment of internal security and a U.N. guarantee of Lebanese independence, according to the spokesman. The heart of Beirut around the Parliament Building was sealed off by security troops, as deputies gathered for the election. A curfew was imposed in that area and even holders of gun licenses were forbidden to carry weapons in the area, with deputies warned that cars would be searched. The only opponent of the General, the head of the moderate National Bloc, who had tried without success to negotiate a political peace earlier, had claimed control of at least a third of Parliament's votes, but observers had never expected him to come close to election, receiving only the seven votes. On the first ballot, General Shehab had been one vote short of the necessary two-thirds majority, but thereafter only a simple majority was required. The deputies broke into cheers on the announcement at the end of the second ballot, and the opponent congratulated the General. By agreement in the half-Christian, half-Moslem nation of 1.5 million people, the president was always a Christian and the Premier was always a Moslem, to maintain a balance between the religions. General Shehab belonged to the Maronite sect of the Roman Catholic church, respected by both religious groups.

In Jerusalem, it was reported that U.S. troubleshooter Robert Murphy had arrived in Israel this date and that the situation in Lebanon was "greatly improved".

In Ankara, Turkey, the close ally of the fallen regime of King Faisal III of Iraq, had recognized the new republican governor of that country this date.

In Nicosia, Cyprus, four British soldiers had held off a mob of 300 Greek Cypriots the previous night in a village near Famagusta, killing two of the villagers before order was restored.

The House called up for action this date a bill to increase Social Security pension checks, the chief provision of which called for a 7 percent increase in old-age, survivors and disability benefits.

The Government trimmed its civilian payroll by 34,560 persons during the fiscal year ending June 30, according to Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia.

In Atlanta, a HUAC subcomittee, investigating un-American activities in the South, this date would conclude its three-day probe, marked by reluctant witnesses claiming the First and Fifth Amendments and references to racism. A 22-year old camera plant worker, William Matthews of Brooklyn, was the only one of 11 witnesses called who had denied any connection with the Communist Party, while the others had refused to say. Among those declining to answer the previous day had been Hunter Pitts O'Dell, an insurance man of Montgomery, Ala., the Detroit-born witness having been described by Richard Arens, the staff director of the HUAC subcommittee, as a "zealot of the Communist movement." Mr. O'Dell, black, had been ruled out of order when he sought to inject a discussion of mistreatment of blacks in the South into the hearing, trying to read a statement but being told that a Committee rule provided that such statements had to be submitted 24 hours in advance. Also appearing was Carl Braden of Louisville, a proponent of racial integration, indicating that the Committee ought be looking at violence against blacks and Jews in the South. Another witness, Frank Wilkinson, had refused to provide any information about himself other than his name, saying that he did so in cooperation with the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, to make a legal test of the constitutionality of the Committee's mandate. Madge Spurny Cole, a textile worker from Greensboro, N.C., had relied on the First and Fifth Amendments in refusing to answer numerous questions, one having been whether she had known former FBI undercover agent Armand Penha and if he had lied in identifying her as a Communist colonizer. He had said that the party had sent highly educated persons into Southern textile mills, concealing their educational background, to obtain jobs and cultivate workers. Mrs. Cole had two college degrees.

The House Commerce Committee had discussed possible contempt of Congress action against Bernard Goldfine, the friend of White House chief of staff Sherman Adams, for about an hour this date, but had recessed without taking action. Indications were that the Committee would vote on the matter late this date.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had directed the Federal Communications Commission this date to find out whether improper influence had figured in the award of a television channel permit in Boston.

In Detroit, a wildcat strike at two Detroit Cadillac plants had come to a quick end this date as 4,600 General Motors employees reported to work.

In Newark, authorities were conducting an investigation this date in the the crash of two trolleys packed with homeward-bound commuters. The rear-end collision the previous day had injured 35 persons, none seriously, and had set off near-panic. Four of the injured required hospitalization. The accident had occurred at rush hour in the City Subway System, a few hundred yards outside the tunnel which ran beneath the business district. The scene was a blind curve at a point where the trolleys left the tunnel and came into the open. One of the trolleys had stalled when its pole carrying power from the overhead wires had become detached, prompting the motorman to jump out of his cab to reattach it. As the trolleys ran at 90-second intervals during rush hours, time was of the essence and the motorman was still working on the pole when he heard a second car coming. He yelled a warning and then jumped clear just as the second trolley rammed into the first, with the impact causing those standing in the two cars to be thrown to the floor while those in seats were violently hurled forward. People were screaming and shouting, according to one passenger, who credited the motorman of the second car with calming the passengers. The crash had occurred at a point where a ten mph sign was posted. The motorman of the second car, who had suffered superficial injuries, said that he was traveling at about that speed when he spotted the second car, had slammed on his brakes but had skidded into the rear end of the other trolley. A captain of detectives said that the state of equipment on the second trolley and whether a signal had been ignored would be among the points to be investigated by police. For those students of physics, is Einstein's theory of relativity pertinent also to their inquiry, to determine whether the people sent flying in the cars were moving at ten miles per hour at the point of collision? How about those in the second car just prior to the collision?

In Indianapolis, the 54-year old executive vice-president of Eli Lilly & Co. pharmaceutical firm had been shot to death early this date in a shopping center, and witnesses said that another car had sped away from the scene. Police found few clues except the disheveled condition of the victim's clothing and tire tracks of a car which had driven away at high speed. He had been the top sales executive of the firm, which had a 200 million dollar per year business. He was married with a 14-year old son. An autopsy was scheduled to recover the three small caliber bullets which had gone into his throat, right side and right hip. Police said that his white Cadillac had backed out of the driveway of an office building, then circled over a lawn, ran across a street divider strip, over a curb and hit a utility pole, with the victim apparently unconscious at the time. The shooting scene was located between a large shopping center and a huge apartment area. Witnesses said that two men had driven away from the scene. A homicide captain said that it was too early to say what the motive had been for the shooting, which had occurred about 5 miles from the victim's home. A friend at the home said that the man had called home the previous afternoon saying that he would not be home for dinner and that his family had not known where he was going. Police found a full case of Scotch whiskey in the trunk of the car and in moments of consciousness after he had been found shot, he had been asked who had shot him, after which he murmured four times, "Hospital." By the time the ambulance arrived, he was dead. The deputy coroner said that the victim's billfold contained two $100 bills and $10 in smaller currency, leading police to believe that robbery had not been the motive. He had previously been the president of the Eli Lilly International Corp., until he was made executive vice-president in charge of marketing operations and was also a member of the board of directors.

In Charlotte, two reporters for The News had been the first witnesses called to testify during the morning before a local grand jury investigating alleged irregularities in City Recorder's Court. John Kilgo, who had covered the story for the newspaper, had been the first witness, testifying for about an hour and 20 minutes. Ann Sawyer, also a reporter for the newspaper, was the second witness. A reporter for the Charlotte Observer, L. M. Wright, Jr., had also been called, having written most of the stories for that newspaper. Two SBI agents had spent Wednesday morning with the grand jury, one of whom had also testified on Monday afternoon and all day on Tuesday. A third agent investigating the court irregularities was also set to testify. Others had also been subpoenaed to testify, including fired police Capt. Lloyd Henkel, the solicitor of the court and two defendants in cases which had been delayed in the court. The problem of about 200 mishandled cases in the court remained also, as did the problem of some $30,000 worth of forfeited but uncollected bonds.

John Kilgo reports that veteran News reporter Dick Young had written the previous week that he had recalled when Police Chief Frank Littlejohn had first threatened to resign 20 years earlier. Now, Chief Littlejohn was head of the police department and still threatening to quit, saying, however, that this time he meant it. Most of those in the Department agreed. A majority of the City Council had been ready to demand his resignation, but at the last minute, changed plans prevented them from doing so. Two weeks earlier in the Civil Service hearing regarding Capt. Henkel, he had said to a crowded courtroom that he took orders only from the residents of the city who paid his salary, not from any member of the City Council or the Mayor. Several members of the Council had been in the courtroom and did not like that comment, deciding then to fire him. They had the necessary four votes and were ready to act, when a story in The News had changed their plans. The chief had never turned his back on a fight and appeared to welcome controversy, despite resenting being called controversial. He often referred to himself as "that big-nose so and so", referring to his prominent proboscis. He and his wife had lived in a modest duplex for several years. He had been in many battles since coming to the Department in 1928, but considered the present one involving the Recorder's Court as the most crucial. It was no secret that he and the judge of the court, Basil Boyd, had been feuding for years. The chief had been an outspoken critic of the court since Judge Boyd had become its judge about three years earlier, and he was mainly responsible for finding irregularities recently discovered in the operation of the court. Even the critics of the chief, who were many, admitted that he was one of the outstanding policemen in the nation. A remark often heard was, "If I ever did anything wrong, I would hate for Littlejohn to be after me." At 73, the chief still had plenty of fight. One of his attorney friends had said during the week, "Most men when they reach chief's age will lose that fight, but that's not the way with Littlejohn. He'll still fight you tooth and nail." He had said the previous day that he would become "one of the biggest politicians in town" following his retirement, intending to tell the public all about the present City Council. He had moved many of his personal belongings from his office at police headquarters and had already filled out his retirement papers, and so it appeared on this occasion, he really meant that he was going to take a rest.

The Associated Press reports that an escaped lion had met a group of children playing in a Malibu, Calif., street the previous night, but the lion had run away, jumping through an open window into the house of its owner, an animal trainer who exhibited the lion at carnivals. For two hours, the lion roamed around inside the house, ripping up furniture and draperies, before the trainer lured it into a cage.

In Boston, it was reported that a vicuna coat was resting in a post office, lost in the mails, bearing no tag, wrapper or other clue indicating who had sent it or to whom. The superintendent said that if the claimant did not claim it, it would be placed up for sale in the ensuing quarterly postal auction.

In Detroit, the first man whom anyone could remember refusing to be paid for jury duty, according to Recorder's Court officials, had been on duty for 20 days with the normal pay of eight dollars per day. He had said that accepting pay for jury duty "would be like getting paid for voting."

In Pontiac, Mich., a woman had cast an absentee ballot in the following Tuesday's Michigan primary election and voting officers said that although she would not be out of town on election day, they had let her cast the absentee ballot because she was 100 years old. Republicans, take note! Time to send in the National Guard from every other state, the entire complement of the Army, the Marines, the Navy and Coast Guard to stop this political violence! Let it go and anarchy will be next! Defend the ramparts, men! Radicalism is just around the corner! Let someone 100 vote like that against the rules and the doors are swung wide open to everyone over 90, then over 80, and finally over 10. It's those radical Democrats, always looking for an edge to foreclose Republicans from having any power!

Secretary of Defense Neil McElroy had met Secretary of Defense Judy Wingel of Salt Lake City the previous day, who had been named to the honorary position in the "Girls Nation" meeting in convention in Washington. Who did they name Secretary of War? The primary criterion had to be the girl who drank the most when the girls went partying at the bar. She also needed to have plenty of tattoos in various places, to be, you know, like cool, daddy-o.

On the editorial page, "Bondsman's Trade Should Be Probed" indicates that the bondsman trade in the state was regulated by few laws enabling them opportunities to prey on the helpless and ignorant. The public provided opportunities by locking up people accused of violating the law, for whom a bondsman was available to bail them out of jail pending trial because nobody else would put up their bail. Without the bondsmen, jails would be overflowing with people awaiting trial and so there was no doubt that the bondsmen performed an essential service.

But there was doubt that the bondsmen performed that service with a decent regard for the rights of their clients. Generally, people who turned to the bondsman had nowhere else to go, having a choice of remaining in jail or accepting the terms set by the bondsman. The law regulated the fees which the bondsman could charge, but the clients were not in a position to make trouble for anyone and usually did not know what the law said. Thus, corruption easily flourished.

A prominent bondsman in Mecklenburg County had a police record with 40 arrests for misdemeanors. A black laborer had said that he had paid that same bondsman $360 to avoid going to court. The piece indicates that the long police record of the bondsman did not necessarily indicate a criminal attitude on his part, but did indicate a subnormal respect for the law. Even had there been no corruption, the circumstances of the trade were such that the public ought make a periodic assessment of their practices and the effectiveness of the laws regulating them.

It hopes that the Bell Committee studying court reform would undertake a statewide study of the bondsmen, as their trade was a byproduct of the courts and the committee had the services of an excellent research organization in the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill. If improper or illegal practices prevailed, remedies would have to be prescribed by state law. The public had an obligation not only to provide clean and efficient courts, but also to see that the processes of law did not deliver into unclean hands those accused of violating the law.

"North Carolina Ought To Make It 31" indicates that a speech by State Labor commissioner Frank Crane at UNC on Wednesday, regarding the need for a state minimum wage law, had been as deft and devastating a lesson in social and economic realities as it had heard of in many years.

He had pulled no punches, reminding North Carolinians with painful clarity that the state was "at or near the bottom of the nation's economic ladder when measured by some of the commonly accepted yardsticks of income, prosperity and welfare." He believed that "widespread purchasing power in the hands of the people is one of the essentials of North Carolina's future growth and progress. Our state cannot build effectively for the well-being of her citizens and for a more prosperous future upon the base of a low-wage economy." Thus, he had concluded that a state minimum wage was a social and economic necessity.

The piece finds that it was the type of talk which North Carolinians needed badly. The state had approximately 1.1 million people employed in non-agricultural work, at least 600,000 of whom were covered by the one dollar Federal minimum wage law, and of the half-million not covered, nearly half worked in the state's retail trade and service industry establishments with no wage protection. Thirty-seven percent of those employees earned less than 75 cents per hour the previous year.

In 1957, a bill had passed the State Senate to provide for a 75-cent state minimum wage, but had died in the House, as was the custom with the Legislature. Minimum wage bills had been introduced and defeated in at least seven recent sessions, with the House almost always killing them. The 1957 bill would have benefited 90,000 workers in the state.

Mr. Crane had explained the effect of state minimum wage legislation being more far-reaching, helping to minimize the need for subsidizing by social agencies, providing new purchasing power to channels of commerce and providing additional tax revenue for the state to the tune of about $750,000 per year. It would also make further Federal intervention in the wage and hour field unnecessary. The need was great and involved moral as well as economic considerations. Thirty states already had minimum wage laws and it urges that North Carolina ought become number 31.

"Orval E. Faubus Gets a Blank Check" finds that Arkansas Democrats had offered Governor Faubus a blank check to defy Federal authority in future disputes over desegregation, and that there was no reason to believe he would not cash it at the appropriate time. As a result, Arkansas could expect racial strife for years to come, with the chain reaction in other Southern states bound to be unpleasant.

The size of the victory in Tuesday's primary had left little hope for any moderate approach to the racial problems occurring in Little Rock in the desegregation of Central High School. The Governor's hands were now tied as he was married to a massive resistance policy with little or no flexibility.

It suggests that if the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis would refuse to uphold the District Court's delay in integration in Little Rock until the beginning of 1961—as it would in late August, subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in late September—, the danger of trouble again at the high school in September would be increased.

The Governor had stated, "The returns indicate clearly the sentiments of the people." The piece finds that he was correct and that Arkansas had chosen defiance as public policy.

It indicates that the alternatives in the primary had been limited, with a meatpacker and a chancery judge being his two opponents, both having been critical of the Governor's handling of the school crisis, while also both having been lightweights and segregationists, themselves. The Governor had ignored them, saying, "It's courage that counts."

The piece finds that courage was not enough, that responsible leadership also required wisdom and restraint, that the Governor had yet to prove that he had much of either.

Governor Faubus appears as Solomon, however, compared with Trump.

A piece from the Wall Street Journal, titled "Memo to Secretaries", indicates that three medical researchers had announced in the Journal of the American Medical Association some predictions about technology and slim secretaries, to which it offers a rebuttal.

The scientists contended that a woman who worked with modern machines had to watch her weight, that a person 5'3" weighing 120 pounds as a secretary, for example, who switched to an electric typewriter could be expected to gain an extra pound every ten weeks unless she cut down on calories, the reasoning being that the electric typewriter called for less energy expenditure to operate than manual ones.

It, however, indicates that the secretary in its office was 5'2 1/2", weighed 115 pounds and had been using an electric typewriter for the previous six months, that her appetite had remained normal and she had lost 3 pounds, not counting her winter coat. It finds therefore that it indicated that researchers could not always tell about secretaries or their own statistics.

Drew Pearson indicates that it was possible now to tell in detail the inside story of how the U.S. had decided to land Marines in Lebanon and how it wanted to withdraw them immediately thereafter. CIA director Allen Dulles had been awakened in the wee hours of July 14 with news of the revolt in Iraq and the murder of King Faisal III and Premier Nuri Said. CIA agents had been warning for some time that Iraqi sentiment was drifting away from the U.S., but Mr. Dulles had not been prepared for the disastrous news of the coup. Shortly after breakfast that morning, Secretary of State Dulles and his brother had gone to the White House, together considering with the President the question of U.S. intervention in the Middle East.

Prior to that time, Secretary Dulles had done his best to discourage any landing of U.S. troops in Lebanon. Lebanese President Camille Chamoun, the Christian head of the divided Moslem-Christian, pro-Western nation, had been asking first for U.N. help and later for U.S. help, to block the flood of arms and Syrian-trained troops which had been streaming across the Syrian-Lebanese border as part of the Soviet timetable to bring all of the region under Premier Gamal Abdel Nasser's and Soviet control. Secretary Dulles, however, had first discouraged any appeal to the U.N. and later told U.S. Ambassador Robert McClintock in Lebanon to prevent President Chamoun from formally requesting U.S. intervention pursuant to the Eisenhower Doctrine.

Simultaneously with the White House meeting, two powerful Republican Senators, minority leader Senator William Knowland of California and Styles Bridges of New Hampshire, both frequent critics of the President's foreign policy, had become upset about the Iraq coup. They had received a phone call early that morning from their newspaper friend, Constantine Brown, who for some time had been urging a stronger U.S. policy in the Middle East and had told them that it was now time to intervene. Senators Knowland and Bridges, attending the swearing-in ceremony of new Atomic Energy Commission chairman John McCone at the White House in the morning, communicated their views to the President.

The President's policy toward Chiang Kai-shek in Nationalist China was largely dictated by those two Senators, with the President giving great weight to their opinions. Their views, plus the advice of Secretary Dulles that the entire Middle East would fall into the hands of Premier Nasser if the U.S. did not move with vigor, plus the agreement of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to cooperate in landing paratroops in Jordan, had produced the decision to land the American troops in Lebanon.

The decision had not been based on any idea of saving President Chamoun, but rather to establish a beachhead in the Middle East, first for possible action against Iraqi rebels and second as a gesture of reassurance to Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia that the U.S. would back up its friends. Because of that, there had been a rush to land more troops in Lebanon than ever would be needed in such a small country. Until almost a week earlier, troops were still being landed for possible use in Iraq or Jordan.

In making the decision, the President and Secretary Dulles had consulted no lower officials in the State Department and had ignored the advice of U.S. Ambassador McClintock, who was quite opposed to the landing, threatening to go out in a small boat and seek to stop it. The Lebanese Ambassador in Washington had also been flatly opposed to military intervention.

Walter Lippmann tells of it being unclear as to what had gone wrong between Britain, France and the U.S. such that there was now an unavoidable commitment to a summit meeting in New York, which the U.S. did not want, and no small meeting in Europe, as desired by Premier Charles de Gaulle, which the U.S. should have wanted. The question remained as to how to manage the meeting between President Eisenhower and Premier Nikita Khrushchev to afford the least damage.

Mr. Lippmann urges that a way had to be found to avoid a public debate, as the President had neither the training and knowledge nor the vitality for such an ordeal, and beyond that, the necessity to mend fences in the Middle East so that when the meeting would take place, the U.S. would not be positioned in the role of defendants in a public trial. He posits that it could be done if two things presently being considered could be achieved before the summit, one being an agreement in Lebanon which would lead to withdrawal of the Marines or at least to fix a definite date by which that withdrawal would take place, and the other being to extend diplomatic recognition to the new Iraqi Government, as Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany and others were advising. Those two actions together would refute completely the charge that the U.S. was engaged in a military adventure in the Middle East.

Doing so, however, would be recognized throughout the world as a forced retreat from an untenable position in Lebanon and Iraq, leading to the question whether the Western Big Three could produce proposals which would lead to the prospects of better days in the region. It had been proved first in the Suez crisis of October-November, 1956, and again now in Lebanon and Jordan that the Western governments did not have the power, even if they had the resolution, to restore the supremacy which Britain had possessed before World War II. It still had to be proved whether the Western governments had the imagination and intellect to play a leading part in the liquidation of the old privileges and in the construction of a new order.

There had been inadequate diplomatic negotiations with the Russians in preparation for the New York summit meeting at the U.N., but there was also inadequate preparation in terms of what might be the shape of a new Middle Eastern order, which, if established, would enable the West to face Mr. Khrushchev with great confidence.

Mr. Lippmann suggests that the paramount issue in the region was not oil, which the Arabs had to sell to the West, not Israel, which was on the sidelines in the present crisis, not the revolutionary force of Premier Nasser and his United Arab Republic, but rather Russia's determination not to have U.S. military power positioned on its southern flank. He says that the West could never understand the inwardness of the Middle Eastern crisis unless it recognized that what the West considered to be military containment of the Soviet Union was that which the Soviets were bound to regard as a military menace. U.S. forces were in Turkey, the equivalent of Communist forces being stationed in Mexico. There was the NATO alliance and the Baghdad Pact, of which the equivalent would be an anti-American Soviet military alliance consisting of Mexico, Cuba and Central America.

He suggests that there was a campaign by the Soviets to disrupt the containing alliance on its frontiers, and that with the coup in Iraq, that campaign had enjoyed great success, not only in knocking out the only Arab state aligned with the West, but in isolating Turkey. The Russian support of Premier Nasser and his Arab nationalism had been the main strategic device in that campaign. The immediate objective was to deny to the West, and particularly to the U.S., the strategic control of the Middle East.

He indicates that if the understanding of Soviet policy was correct in that regard, the first conclusion to reach was that a settlement could not be achieved with Premier Nasser alone. While desirable, appeasement of him was unnecessary, as the basic settlement had to be reached with the Soviets and the subject of that settlement had to be strategic control of the Middle East. He finds that there were three conceivable possibilities, one being to restore the Middle East as a sphere of influence for Britain, France and the U.S., with Russia excluded. But it was too late to do that and the West was not strong enough to do it. A second alternative would be to let the region become a Russian sphere of influence, an unnecessarily abject surrender, and the West was not so weak that it would have to be accepted. The third alternative would be to neutralize the region as between the two great military alliances and to build on that overall neutralization specific agreements regarding the oil business, the security of Iran, Lebanon and Israel. While that third alternative would not be easy, requiring a higher order of statesmanship than that to which the West was accustomed, it was not impossible. For it did not run contrary to the vital interests of any of the nations concerned.

Doris Fleeson finds it inevitable in the President's decision to retain White House chief of staff Sherman Adams that he would be confronted with similar decisions requiring him either to condone "imprudence" or impose a double standard on his appointees. She finds that it had now happened as the President had withdrawn the nomination of Bernard Flanagan as Civil Service commissioner, but only after it had become apparent that the Senate Post Office Committee would not confirm his nomination on the ground that Mr. Flanagan had admitted under oath numerous misstatements on Government job application forms.

His insistence that his mistakes were innocently made and were unimportant was not acceptable to the Senators, who had seen their own constituents drummed out of government service for lesser errors. Faced with revival of the issue of clean government, the President had withdrawn the nomination, thus establishing a double standard. That case had received relatively little publicity, both because of the Middle East crisis and because only Washington seemed to take special interest in lesser personalities who were not tied closely to the President.

She finds it nevertheless of great importance to an important group of people, the permanent civil service employees, as they would now know that they would not be directed in part by a commissioner who had made "errors" which would cost them their careers if discovered.

The President was paying the cost, however, of some cynicism regarding the retention of Mr. Adams, and the case would not simply go away. People in Washington largely came from elsewhere and many of them cast absentee ballots, hearing from people back home.

The Senators had been initially inclined to be kind to Mr. Flanagan who had worked around Congress in various places, including the Capitol Police. But when they found, primarily through the painstaking research of John Cramer of the Washington Daily News, the extent of Mr. Flanagan's "imprudence", they realized they had no choice, as back home, they were expected to keep the civil service as pure as possible.

In the fall midterm elections, many candidates would capitalize on Congressional solicitude for probity and would view comparisons with the White House not as odious but as deserved by the Administration. Administration spokesmen were being quoted as saying that a "simon-pure career man" would be named by the President to the civil service vacancy and Senators said they would carefully examine him in case of a tie. She finds the irony to have been that Mr. Adams was in complete command of virtually all of the Presidential patronage, that below the Cabinet level, he cleared appointees and suggested many of them. If in his view someone had too many liabilities, the chance for Presidential appointment was very poor.

It had not been established whether Mr. Adams had broken the news to Mr. Flanagan, but someone had to do it and it had to be someone within the sound of the voice of Mr. Adams.

A letter writer, chairman of the North Carolina Federation of Young Republicans, responds to a previous letter regarding Representative Charles Jonas, the writer wishing to bring at least one fact to the attention of the previous writer and the voters of the district, that being that the attendance and voting record of Mr. Jonas during the previous six years during which he had been in office having been 98 percent, an outstanding record, especially given that he had voted on several occasions contrary to the Administration's position, which the writer finds demonstrative of his ability to vote independently and for the welfare of the district he represented. He also indicates that his opponent, David Clark, had a voting and attendance record in the State Legislature between 1951 and 1957 of approximately 76 percent, causing him to question whether Mr. Clark felt that only three quarters of the issues voted in Raleigh were important enough to require his vote.

It should be pointed out that the comparison is apples to oranges as state legislators served virtually without pay and met, except in an extraordinary session, only once biennially and for about 90 to 120 days per session. Many of the issues being voted on by the legislators were purely local issues to each separate county, and thus the fact that an individual legislator was absent a quarter of the time would not be comparable to a Congressman being absent that much. Moreover, since Mr. Jonas was the only Republican at the time in the North Carolina Congressional delegation, he had, perhaps, a much higher recognition of his special place and need to be present.

A letter writer writes regarding the possibility of W. A. Murphy being considered as the next police chief, indicating that he knew Mr. Murphy and his family from when they had moved to Charlotte when he headed the FBI office, having been next-door neighbors and becoming good friends. He says that Mr. Murphy would be eminently qualified to be chief, being well-educated, well-rounded and highly respected as a law enforcement officer.

A letter writer from Zirconia indicates that columnist Dr. Molner had persistently reminded that "food fanatics" could cure little, but did not bother to discern between the food faddist and the nutritionist. She indicates that food faddists were just faddists while nutritionists had been curing all diseases from sinus trouble to leukemia. Dr. Alexis Carrel of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research had said: "If the doctor of today does not become the dietitian of tomorrow, the dietitian of today will become the doctor of tomorrow."

Framed Edition
[Return to Links
Page by Subject] [Return to Links-Page by Date] [Return to News<i><i><i>—</i></i></i>Framed Edition]
Links-Date Links-Subj.