The problem, however, was that the public did not support such enforcement of the liquor laws in the county. And the law permitting a gallon per person per day to be brought into the county from wet areas made enforcement that much more difficult.

Chief Littlejohn thought that prohibition encouraged bootlegging and the crime which went with it, thus making a mockery of law enforcement generally. The piece urges consideration of this experienced viewpoint as voters went to the polls two days hence—at long last, thank goodness.

The piece points out that his case had nothing to do with rape. The case of the attempted lynching in Jackson, N.C., of Buddy Bush, arrested for attempted rape for chasing a white woman, never getting close enough for her to identify him, also did not, therefore, involve strictly a rape case. Moreover, the sudden spate of alleged rapes or inchoate rapes of late had taken place only after the acquittal in Greenville, and thus the typical argument, strained as it was in its premises, could not be made that lynching served as a deterrent.

While rape was obviously a serious crime, state laws adequately dealt with it. At the time in North Carolina, for instance, it was a capital offense. It was unnecessary therefore to have a Federal law to address it. States had historically actively prosecuted the crime of rape; not so with lynching in the South. That failure was what the Federal law was attempting to redress, even if in the case of the Willie Earle lynchers, no one had questioned the tenacity with which the case was prosecuted and the fairness of the court in conducting the trial.

The piece states that the editors had become so frustrated at repeatedly seeking to untangle such confusion that they proposed a merger between the two states, henceforth to be called Carolina. It would corroborate the majority of radio comedians, songwriters, and editorialists who regularly transmogrified the two states into one entity.

Senator James Kem of Missouri accused the Democrats of whitewashing the election. Mr. Clark responded that he had vigorously prosecuted and sent to jail Mayor James Curley of Boston for graft in forming war contracts. He had also brought a prosecution of former Kentucky Congressman Andrew May on receipt of bribes in war contracts.

The column next tells of the wife of the newly appointed American Minister to Ireland, George Garret, stating that one of her biggest worries was how to accommodate all of her friends who wanted tickets to the Irish sweepstakes.

The end of housing controls for veterans had taken place by way of the proposal of Senator Douglas Buck of Delaware, substituting in conference the House bill for the Senate bill on housing and rents, except for the Senate provision to raise rents by 15 percent. The amendment had passed.

On the conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill had been Senator William Knowland of California, for veterans' housing, and Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, a veteran who nevertheless took the side of the real estate lobby against veterans' housing.

The bill was so complex legally that no one yet fully understood it.

Mr. Childs blames labor for not undertaking voluntarily to address some of the ills which the bill sought to remedy. Anticipation of the inevitability of its worst aspects probably would have served to mitigate its impact on labor.

One of the things which the bill did was to enable the President to appoint a general counsel who would oversee labor contests and determine which matters could come before the NLRB, making him essentially a labor czar.

One legal expert who had reviewed the bill had informed Mr. Childs that it was so weighted down with intricacy in the process for getting before the Board that, in his opinion, most labor unions would henceforth opt to strike before seeking to resolve their disputes at the Board.

For the immediate future, the bill would likely insure an increase in contested labor cases, and the NLRB was already overburdened with cases.

The European agency would determine the needs of the European countries and then determine what needs could be met by Europe itself. The remaining gap would be filled by the American agency which would then determine allocation of the approximate six billion dollars annually which would likely be needed in the initial years until Europe could again be self-sustaining.

The leadership abroad likely would have to come from Britain as the Communists would seek to wreck Western European economies by such devices as the current French rail strike.

Uncertainty existed as to whether the Congress would appropriate the necessary money for this program. It would resist any aid to such Soviet-dominated countries as Poland and Czechoslovakia. And it would be hard to get Congress to understand the interrelationship between the Western European and Eastern European economies.

The editors tell of additional letters on the issue on page 15-A. With your leave, we shall skip those.