The Charlotte News

Wednesday, April 30, 1941

FIVE EDITORIALS

Site Ed. Note: The first letter to the editor this date on the in-person impressions of the controversial America First rally with Lindbergh, as conveyed to the author by his brother, presents a picture confirmed by press accounts of the day, that the rally was as much a Bundist, pro-Hitler, pro-Mussolini, affair as it was a mere isolationist-pacifist forum for voicing of honest dissent to war.

The other letter supports Mrs. Mullins's views on Blue Sundays replete with cites and quotes from scripture. Of course in quoting Exodus 20:1-10, it neglects to realize that the Old Testament's Hebrew Sabbath was Saturday, not Sunday. Thus, to be consistent, there would have to be a Blue Saturday as well. Likewise in citing Ezekiel 46:3, "Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the door of this gate before the Lord in the sabbaths and in the new moon." Naturally , therefore, for consistency, there is imported the requisite of Blue New Moon Day, on which the familiar song would naturally be sung repeatedly in honor thereof.

In further support of his argument, sounding a bit threatening actually, the letter writer cites us to Exodus 35:2, similar to the quoted 20:1-10 declaring the sabbath a holy day, but ominously adding, "whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." He combines that then with the even more Draconian Numbers 15:35: "And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp," referring to the man described in verse 32, a man who gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

While it is certainly true that everybody must get stoned, we think even under the trends of even the most ignorant fools in modernity, desirous of blood sacrifice and death to the troublesome enemies of the will of "god", i.e. succumbing to their own id drives placed as superego, sacrifices to the "god", to stone a man to death for gathering sticks on Sunday is more than any Christian concept or modern Hebraic concept of the Lord would allow. Indeed, we would call it murder if transacted by the mob; cruel and unusual punishment if enacted by the state; primitive and outrageous, whether strictly speaking Mosaic or not, regardless of the actor.

Anyone who might dispute it should then quickly check themselves on the checklist of requirements set forth in that same chapter in Numbers: do you make your burnt offerings to the Lord consisting of a bullock with three tenths deals of flour mingled with half an hin of oil, a third of a hin of wine, the kid of a lamb, the kid of a goat, and a cake of the first of your dough, among other things, all in exchange for forgiveness of sins committed in ignorance of the Lord's ordinances, with none to profit thereby if committed "presumptuously", that is to say presuming to know God's ordinances? And, by the way, you will also need to wear upon the fringe of your garment a ribband of blue, (thus the likely derivation of "Blue" Laws), as required by verses 38 and 39, that you shall remember and do the Lord's commandments "and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring."

But then came the Jewish rabbi, Jesus, you see... And by the teaching he gave in the synagogue, probably on Saturdays, the stonings came to be considered rather an evil thing, in which the scribes and Pharisees and ye hypocrites took great pleasure, including the final stoning of Jesus himself for allegedly being blasphemous. So.

Likewise, Mark 6:2, as cited by the letter writer from the New Testament, does not advance the ball a whit insofar as pronouncing a commandment for Blue Laws; for it refers only to teaching by Jesus in the synagogue on the sabbath, presumably the Jewish Sabbath; it does not refer to Sunday or, in any event, any proscription or commandment regarding the sabbath, regardless of what day of the week on which it might fall. Nor does it talk of the new moon day, as did Mosaic law.

And how precisely open Sundays, that is not affirmatively legislating a Sabbath, or counseling the absence of same, runs afoul of the admonition of Revelations 22:18-19 for adding to or subtracting from the Bible, thus assuring death, as the letter writer argues, we cannot quite figure. It seems to the contrary that attempting, on Biblical grounds, to presume God's law and thus to enact an ordinance in accord with that part of it at least found in the Old Testament, forsaking the New in the process, and forsaking also with it other prescribed behavior, reading out of context only one verse here, another there, to fit the result you want, is not only attempting to add to and subtract from the Bible through that very presumption, but one for which, at least by Numbers, one could not obtain atonement by virtue of the prescribed burnt offerings, bullocks, wine, flour, dough, etc., for having committed the sins not in ignorance but presumptuous of the laws of God, you see.

Besides, where was the Legislature's or the various city councils' ribbands of blue fringing their garments to remind them of all of the commandments? Where does it say, for instance, "woe unto ye cities and towns that you may know your destruction lest you imprint upon the post of every corner in the form of ordinance: 'Stay ye not open on Sunday, nor gather ye the sticks that day of unrighteous provender, even ye, the scribes and Pharisees, or be stoned in the camp without, and forever chastised and dead as a doornail, for ye, ye sin and lust which come from having amusement on the sabbath; ye shall be blue on the sabbath which is declared to be Sunday, as everyone knows, and if not blue thereby of your own account, ye shall be made blue by the stones'"?

Oh, Moses, more or less, you say, said that...

Well, let us start the stonings then, and start with those who gather sticks. But beware the glass of your house first. We have a few rocks of our own to throw back.

In any event, we shall show you something about all that soon--something which our friend in the Caribbean dug up a few years ago.

There Was No Conflict Between Him and Citizens Group

It may be taken for granted, we think, that Baxter would have run his head off against Currie if he had thought he had an outside chance. That he decided against it seems to indicate his belief that the Davis vote--at least that part of it controlled by the promoters of Mr. Davis' campaign--would be thrown against him.

It is not that they love Currie more but Baxter less.

And the net effect of Mr. Baxter's withdrawal is to make Mr. Currie Mayor, which we believe must suit Mr. Baxter as well as anything would have suited him under the circumstances except being Mayor himself.

Matter of fact, in having to work against the Citizens Group in the runoff, Mr. Baxter was in something of an anomalous position. His whole record at the City Hall--and it is a good one--establishes a great deal in common with what the Citizens Group is accepted as standing for. Littlejohn, the dime taxis, wholehearted support of Jim Marshall as City Manager--in all those matters Baxter characterized himself.

Without crediting his withdrawal from the Mayor's race to noble motives, we think it may still be said that it is due in part to his recognition that in having to fight the Citizens Group he would be fighting his friends, those who share his principles.

There is in this city no surplus of men actively interested and influential in politics who stand--well, let's say who stand for the best. There is a lot of cleaning up and cleaning out yet to be done in Charlotte and a lot more in Mecklenburg County. That ought to be the next assignment of the Citizens Group, and in carrying it out good use can be made of Mr. Baxter's services. They ought to take him in.

Morgenthau and Opponents Are Both Unrealistic in This

Secretary Morgenthau Monday attacked proposed taxes on tea, coffee, sugar, etc., as a levy on the "poor man's table."

What he meant is clear enough. There are members of Congress who have been passing out the word that the middle income group--to which, curiously, Congressmen belong--must not have their income taxes greatly increased, and that the burden of new taxes ought to fall mainly on the low income group.

That is an unrealistic and dangerous form of thinking. The American people are in no mood to tolerate such tenderness for those who enjoy the highest standard of living on earth. And above all from elected persons who are themselves members of the group.

But Secretary Morgenthau's position is scarcely more realistic. Taxes on coffee and sugar may be ill-advised. The authorities are agreed that reasonably sound finance requires that the Government should raise at least twelve billions in new revenue for the next fiscal year. Secretary Morgenthau's tax program contemplates the raising of only three and a half billions of that, a little less than one-third.

It is clear, therefore, that one of two things will need to be done. Either income taxes are going to have to be extended to classes hitherto untouched by them, or some sort of manufacturers' processing tax or retail sales tax is going to have to be resorted to.

Truth is, indeed, that all these things will probably have to be done in the end.

Site Ed. Note: The laws thus passed were a far cry in strictness from today's laws. Whereas the New York law had it that a range of .05% to .15% blood-alcohol was merely relevant, and only above .15%, prima facie evidence of impairment and lack of sobriety sufficient lawfully to pilot a motor vehicle, today's laws generally provide that the presumption of impairment begins by a test result of .08%, that down from the former law in place in most jurisdictions until the mid-1980's of .10%. Indeed, .15% is pretty well snockered for most people and likely a condition where the straight, flat road on a clear spring night would present itself instead as the deck of a ship pitching in a violent storm. It is the equivalent of about eight beers consumed in an eight hour period--pretty well soused for most people. At least, one's reaction time is severely reduced, and sufficiently so to be deemed now legally impaired after the fourth beer in four hours, at .08%. And that ratio of drink to blood-alcohol is reduced considerably for females and males of slight build. Rule of thumb: more than one drink and you had better wait at least an hour per drink after the last before driving. If you can't figure that out, you are either too tired or drunk to drive, so get some rest or stop drinking and don't drive until you can.

New York Adopts Law Which Requires Blood Examination

In New York Governor Lehman has signed a bill which sets up standards for the determination of intoxication in connection with automobile accidents.

Test of the blood of the defendant driver is to be made within two hours after his arrest.

If the examination shows five one-hundredths of one per cent of alcohol, or less, in the blood, this will be deemed prima-facie evidence that the defendant was not intoxicated.

Five to fifteen one-hundredths of one per cent of alcohol is to be considered as relevant but not prima-facie evidence of intoxication. This provision is designed to allow for the tolerance for alcohol required by habitual drinkers.

More than fifteen one-hundredths of one per cent is to be deemed prima-facie evidence of intoxication.

The bill looks like a rational one, which in general might well serve as a model for other states in setting up such standards.

But it plainly ought to apply to all cases of alleged drunken driving and not merely to those which arise out of accidents.