It advocates that the present would be a good time for Mecklenburg to assert itself in the judicial district and force an election for the post rather than accepting a Gaston county solicitor, especially since the Legislature appeared ready at its next session to redistrict and place Mecklenburg in a separate judicial district from heavily populated Gaston County.

The FEPC filibuster was further holding up the decisions in these critical areas.

The editorial states, "We detect a faint echo of the B.O. foghorn behind Mr. Grove's remarks, but we will pass over our suspicion that he is a tool of the soap interests in order to get at the more fascinating part of his revelation, the remark about perfume." It proceeds to state that it was disconcerting to view this traditional paradigm of manly passion as having stepped from his bath and dashed bits of perfume about his phiz. It suggests that such notions could breed chaos in the field of romance, especially as perfume companies advertised the essences of attraction.

One company, for instance, bottled Saint alongside Sinner, the latter presumably "suitable for an evening in the opium dens", while the former was for attending church.

If a man were attacked suddenly by the aura of Surrender, then he could quickly escape into a masculine atmosphere pervaded by stale beer.

Later, after the campaign, Mr. Bailey asked the employee of his religion and he replied that he was Lutheran, had immigrated from Czechoslovakia.

"And here was that miserable, snooping, intolerance undertaking to put me in a bad light unless I should discharge him."

He next tells of Marshal Georgi Zhukov complaining to Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery of the British occupation force in Germany maintaining within their occupation zone a contingent of several hundred thousand German soldiers prepared to fight another war. He contended that the troops were regularly being drilled by their own officers and that 100,000 had been allowed to retain their small arms, while heavier artillery and tanks were being kept at the ready. He considered it a violation of the Potsdam agreement formed in July, 1945.

General Montgomery had responded with a wave of his hand, saying that the number was far less than indicated, but that it was of no consequence in any event.

The same sort of thing had presaged World War II in the aftermath of World War I, as British money had flowed to munitions manufacturers throughout the rebuilding process of the German war machine and the British had dissuaded the French from stopping the Germans from invading the Rhineland in 1936. Britain was still pursuing balance of power politics, seeking to form a Western bloc of nations consisting of Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany against Russia. That, he asserts, was the real purpose behind the maintenance of the German force.

He next tells of how well off the steel industry was because of favorable tax treatment during the war, which was now paying off by allowing the companies to write off their capital expenditures in a shortened period of time during the war. Bethlehem Steel, for instance, had the most profitable year in its history in 1945, made more so by the tax breaks.

He calls for summoning not only Benjamin Fairless of U.S. Steel, but also Ernest Weir and Tom Girdler, the other kingpins of the steel industry, to explain their positions. CIO had asserted that Mr. Fairless was willing to acquiesce, though he denied it, and that the other steel moguls had forced his hand in refusing the compromise.

Steel and G.M. held a lock on the country preventing reconversion, and stood as a potent societal force, more powerful even than the Government.

Moreover, the President's proposed budget, as long as the major strikes continued, could be treated with a grain of salt, as it was predicated on estimated revenues without regard to strikes.

At stake was the economic welfare of the nation, not just the workers and industry. Thus, the public had a right to know what in fact was going on behind the scenes.

The prevailing trend eschewing compromise would make the country sorry later unless it listened to the President now, trying desperately to hold it together as forces of intransigence, especially in industry, sought to pull it apart.

On the other side of the political spectrum, however, Southern Senators were engaging in equally destructive tactics regarding the filibuster to prevent a vote on the Fair Employment Practices Commission bill. The filibuster consisted of reading of collateral material into the record, not engaging in any substantive debate on the bill. Nothing else could come before the Senate in the meantime. She labels the move "bolshevistic", as it was an assault on democratic government processes.

Such "common ruthlessness" as these episodes showed portended use of force to decide political questions. Mr. Quill and the Southern Senators were acting as brothers, enemies to civilization, social peace, and progress.

The editors respond that if unions were essentially outlawed, wages would be frozen, and, necessarily, so too would be profits. It questions whether that would be good.