The Charlotte News
Thursday, July 14, 1949
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that the President intended to set up a fact-finding board to study the steel dispute whether or not the Big Three steel companies, U.S. Steel, Bethlehem, and Republic, went along with the proposal of the President for a 60-day strike moratorium pending that study. The Big Three had rejected the proposal, contending it bypassed the procedures of Taft-Hartley allowing injunction of such a strike, and only Jones & Laughlin and some smaller firms had gone along with the proposal. The President had countered that he did not believe the situation yet serious enough to invoke Taft-Hartley. Philip Murray, head of the United Steelworkers Union, said that he would issue strike orders against any firm not agreeing with the proposal. U.S. Steel and Bethlehem had stated the previous day that their contracts remained in effect until the spring and so they were unconcerned about strikes.
The President's radio and television address the previous night, in which he criticized "selfish interests" for urging drastic cuts in Federal spending and indicated that many wanted a depression for "political reasons", drew rebuke from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. The President had criticized the previous Congress for cutting income taxes and not enacting his inflation control program of wage, price and production allocation controls, asserting that the same interests were now advocating the spending cuts. Sixty Senators had signed a petition urging the President to cut budget allocations across the board by 5 to 10 percent. The President had called the proposal a way of passing their responsibility for budget cuts and the consequent political fallout to the White House. The critics of his statement included Democratic Senators John McClellan of Arkansas and John Sparkman of Alabama, and Republican House Minority Leader Joe Martin. Senator Claude Pepper of Florida, however, praised the President for showing commonsense and "practical justification".
In Canton, China, Chiang Kai-Shek declared that his Nationalist forces would continue to fight the Chinese Communists until final victory. Chiang said that the Communists were aggressors in the vanguard of other aggressors, a reference presumably to Russia. Premier Yen Hsi-Shan had declared that the Nationalists would no longer discuss peace with the Communists but would wage a "win-all, lose-all" fight to the finish.
In Vatican City, Pope Pius XII had ordered major excommunication of all militant Communist Catholics, denying them sacraments and comforts of the Church. Those, however, who had only adopted the theories and not the practice of Communism might be entitled to a period of grace to return to the faith, while those who read Communist writings or otherwise exposed themselves to Communist doctrine would be denied the sacraments but would not be excommunicated.
Well, now, that's a fine how-do-you-do for a Catholic attending a public University which might require, as part of a broad-based and enlightened education, a reading, for instance, of Das Kapital by Karl Marx. Someone in the Vatican did not do their homework very thoroughly, having no faith in the human mind to discriminate between objective education, to understand the theories behind Communism, and indoctrination.
In London, the British Exchequer cut dollar-value imports from the U.S. by 25 percent to conserve its diminishing supply of gold and dollars. Since some export prices from the U.S. had dropped, it would not necessarily equate to a 25 percent reduction in tonnage. The cuts would affect tobacco, timber, paper and pulp, as well as non-ferrous metals and steel. Rations on sugar would be lowered from 10 to 8 ounces weekly and a 4-ounce weekly candy ration would return in mid-August.
You better swallow that candy while you can, youngster. A month from now, you won't have any to mention in polite company.
People were queuing up in front of tobacco stores in London as cigarettes were already scarce. You won't even be able to get candy cigarettes soon.
Sir Stafford Cripps, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that the ration for butter, meat and bacon, however, would be increased, with that for bacon set to go from two to three ounces per week in latter August. No candy. No cigarettes. Just more bacon. If the sugar and nicotine is not there to steady the ship of state, maybe just pure fat will do the trick to supply the ballast.
In New York, the city Transport Workers Union went on strike, halting bus service. The strike originated from the firing of four maintenance workers, prompting 350 maintenance workers to stage an unauthorized walkout, followed by the authorized strike by all transport workers of the 21 bus lines, crippling service to over 900,000 commuters.
In Chicago, the 15-year old boy accused of killing his three-year old neighbor by hanging him from a rafter in his family's basement, saying that it had been an accident resulting from an initiation ceremony in a Hangman's club, was indicted by the grand jury for murder. The boy was a student in a school for backward children.
In Lima, O., a tower-sitter who had escaped from the Lima State Hospital and climbed a water tower wanted a Western Union messenger to deliver to him a telegram from the police chief of the town at which point, he said, he would descend. He had been convicted of murder. The authorities, though having been fooled by his earlier requests as conditions for his descent only to have him change his mind, prepared to meet his demand and if that did not work to get him down, they said they would simply wait him out, as he was already expressing pangs of thirst and hunger, having climbed the tower the previous day at 9:30 a.m.
In Albuquerque, N.M., a parrot was up a tree refusing to descend back into his cage. Its owner was not pleased with suggestions to retrieve him, either throwing a net over the tree in which he had perched, or stunning him with a BB gun, or just plain shooting him. Several attempts at extrication had already failed, including hitting him with water from a fire hose. Polly simply flew to another tree. Call him "Pauly".
At least the same suggestions had not been made with respect to the man on the water tower.
In Kentland, Ind., a bell pealing in the Zoro Nature Park signaled all members of the Central Sunbathing Association to strip naked for four days. The "king of the nudists", a Chicago lawyer, said that he wanted everyone to know that there would no idling or ogling at the event.
In Hopkinton, Mass., a man who had been blind for 18 years had his sight restored in a blinding flash the previous week. He was thrilled to see things again, including his two young grandchildren for the first time. He had become blind in 1929, apparently from shock after the drowning of his young son.
He can get an eyeful, maybe, in Kentland, Indiana.
The North Carolina State Board of Education approved an overall increase in teacher salaries equal to 28.17 percent for the coming school year, raising average pay from $1,945 to $2,494 per year, and to $2,511 in 1950-51.
Wow, you can get rich being a teacher, now.
The following day's book page of The
News would carry a review of The Campus of the First State
University, anent UNC. Sports editor Furman Bisher would review
It Happens Every Spring
On the editorial page, "An Important Assignment" discusses the first meeting this date of a special commission to study the relationship between the State and maintenance and construction of city streets, and to make recommendations on whether the State had responsibility in that quarter. It hopes that a per mile allocation for State roads inside cities and a lower per mile allocation for paved city streets otherwise which met State specifications could be implemented.
"Vengeance at Work" praises the decision by HUAC to delay any further investigation into the Hiss-Chambers controversy until after the perjury case against Alger Hiss finally concluded, the first trial having just the previous week ended in a hung jury. To have done otherwise would have been ill-advised.
It was clear that the statements of Congressmen Richard Nixon, Harold Velde, and Ed Cox of the Committee, critical of Judge Samuel Kaufman for being pro-defense and for declaring the mistrial, were expressions of disappointment at the outcome. From the start, several members had shown strong prejudice against Mr. Hiss, believing him guilty, with or without proof. And now they were demonstrating their failure to accept the principle of American jurisprudence that a person is innocent until proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty.
Judge Kaufman was handicapped as he could not answer the allegations against him by the HUAC members. Former Secretary of War Robert Patterson, presently president of the New York Bar Association, had said that the independence of the judiciary would be compromised were a judge to be investigated by a Congressional committee every time a decision issued with which the Committee members disagreed.
The Christian Science Monitor compared the idea of trial by Congressional committee, while the witness was still presumed to be innocent, to the practices of a totalitarian regime.
The Greensboro Daily News commented that if Messrs. Nixon and Velde had their ways, there would be no second trials as the jury would always be forced to reach a verdict on the first trial, as in Russia.
The Louisville Courier-Journal accused the Congressmen of saying of Judge Kaufman that which the Communists were saying about Judge Harold Medina in the trial in New York of the top eleven American Communists on Smith Act violations.
It concludes that as long as HUAC permitted its members to run roughshod over the traditions of American justice, it would offer as much threat to democracy as the interests it was supposedly trying to expose.
Mr. Nixon would, unfortunately, never learn the lesson while in public service. His paranoid obsession with his "enemies" and his incessant lust for vengeance upon them would lead ultimately to his downfall.
And now we have on the scene another nut running for the presidency for the Republicans, probably worse than even Mr. Nixon—receiving advice, not coincidentally, from one of Mr. Nixon's chief dirty tricks experts from 1968 and 1972, the same individual who orchestrated the attack by Wall Streeters and crooked lawyers on the office of the Miami-Dade County Registrar of Voters in November, 2000, shutting down by threat and intimidation the recount in the Bush versus Gore contest just before Thanksgiving, by subsequent court order never to be resumed.
Conny Donny never saw a major news story which he could not relate back to "weakness" of the present Administration regarding "terrorism", even when it is evident to any sane and objective observer that these major news stories are merely acts of individual insane persons, glorified beyond their individuality by this nut and his cohorts in the media who likewise promote these individual acts as "terrorism". Mr. Nixon was politically shrewd, if a little unbalanced. Conny Donny is simply insane and, we charge, is fueling international incidents of the type which occurred in Nice, France, yesterday. These incidents were not so commonplace prior to his candidacy, after all, beginning 13 months ago. Political avarice is matching his avarice generally and knows no boundaries. He has no walls to limit his behavior, having been a spoiled brat growing up and having never developed any mature frame of reference vis à vis the world at large, never having worked a day in his life, beyond running his mouth incessantly. His only wall is the one now on which he focuses as an idée fixe, building a border wall just as the paranoid Soviets did in Berlin in 1961. The man genuinely needs psychiatric treatment. When he says that he could still win votes after firing a gun at people in the middle of Times Square, he really believes it. Yet, no one appears to call him out on these absurdities, demanding forcefully apologies. Instead, the media whores actually encourage him because he feeds their media whoredom with trumped-up news stories which these idiots then seek to lay at the feet of President Obama or even former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, out of office for nearly four years.
Isn't it convenient to blame an American President for purely domestic occurrences in France over which the President of the United States or the Congress of the United States obviously have no power to prevent whatsoever? To jump up and down and scream bloody murder, making accusations of "playing politics with tragedy" when the responsible President and the Democrats in Congress lay the blame for domestic acts of mass violence where it belongs, on lack of adequate gun control, is the height of hypocrisy when the Republican presidential nominee and his surrogates proceed to jump onto the television screen irresponsibly, without full information in the immediate aftermath of these tragedies, and play the worst political game imaginable with tragedy by blaming the President for not using specific terminology such as "radical Islam" in reference to "terrorist acts", acts which have not yet been determined to be anything more than that of an insane individual, as if, even if it were determined to be an act of organized terrorism, calling it by another name would change anything, as if this President and his Administration had not eliminated from the scene some of the worst terror agents of the last four decades, and with little response but condemnation by the Republicans.
Beyond bluster and absurd talk, what, concretely, would this Republican idiot, who advocates "gun rights", do to stop a "terrorist" action of an individual in France? Or in the United States? Give guns to everyone, worldwide? Closing borders to Muslims not only runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution, as even his new running mate, Mr. Pence, said not long ago, and every tradition of this country, built by immigrants, but also would serve nothing but to stand as a challenge to native-born "radical Islamists" to take action in vengeance of such a reprehensible policy against their fellows were it tried. It would result in the very things this liar contends the present Administration has "allowed" to happen, as if there were terrorist attacks on American soil in the last eight years. Name one. The Boston Marathon bombing incident was the work of two insane brothers born in the Russian Federation, having nothing to do with Islamic terrorism except in their insane minds, and would not have been prevented, in any event, by your absurdly conceived plan to ban Muslim immigrants, even if it were Constitutional. Coming from Chechnya, not Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or Syria, such persons could leave their religious affiliation off the application for a visa and citizenship and no one would be the wiser. The Orlando nightclub shooter last month was born in the United States. How would you deal with him? What of the Dallas shooter last week? The Virginia Tech shooter in 2007?
You are a nut, Donny, who does not think things through to logical conclusions but shoots from the hip dangerously and irresponsibly, saying anything of the moment which is expedient, driving the engine meanwhile of hatred and division in the society rather than promoting healing, not apparently aware that you are shaping events tragically as you proceed to do so during the past year at will, in love with the sound of your rattling, irresponsible vocal chords. What medication are you on, Donny? Are you hallucinating in some alternative universe?
Mass shootings by individuals have been taking place with increasing frequency in the country since at least 1983, the MacDonalds shootings that year in southern California being among the first, not including the 1966 University of Texas shooting incident which led things off but which was not followed by any repetition because of sensible societal response banning mail-order rifles. Why now do we suddenly want to start labeling every such shooting by a nut as a "terrorist" act to be blamed on some form of lax "law and order" or tolerance of this or that "terrorist" group, rather than placing blame where it belongs, on too easy access to firearms, especially assault weapons, as was the instrument used to kill the five police officers in Dallas last week as well as the 49 nightclub attendees in Orlando three weeks earlier.
Let us try, however, to focus and maintain the attention level on the acts in this country, not in France or elsewhere, over which we have no control whatsoever. One nut on one of these idiotic programs even asked rhetorically last night whether the President might seek to ban trucks, as if these drugged-out, pill-popping, alcoholic lunatics they present as "experts" on these programs actually believe that this incident transpired on American soil and would be subject to any form of control by American law.
There was a woman who killed six people on Thanksgiving Day in 1980 in Reno, Nevada, by running them down with her automobile. In Las Vegas, this past December, a woman ran down a group of pedestrians, killing one and injuring 30 others. A woman in East St. Louis, Mo., ran down four pedestrians last summer. Were those acts of terrorism, calling for a "declaration of war" from Congress, as Donny proclaimed
Are you, Donny, just plain stupid, as are your ardent followers and pill-popping, alcoholic sycophants, or the ultimate demagogue? trumping even the likes of Lester Maddox and George Wallace, who, fortunately, had not at their disposal such devices as Twitter and social media and 24-hour "news", talky-talk networks to render their instant analyses of unfolding current events. Just as with the Dallas shootings, you jumped all over the term "terrorists", based on initial reports last night from France of there being more than one individual involved, and yet in both incidents, there was only one person, whom, thereby, you and your media pals glorified as doing the work of multiple people, thus encouraging others to follow in their suicidal course to wreak havoc.
Congratulations on your growing body counts, those of you who advocate "gun rights", for your continuing resistance to effective gun control in this country, again having nothing to do with incidents abroad, convenient Afghanistanisms for the gun nuts. There is a way to have effective regulation of guns, by having annual registration renewal, just as with automobiles, not just once at gun purchase, mandatory liability insurance just as with automobiles, a certificate of passing a state-qualified training program in firearm use and safety, and mandatory mental check-ups at the gun owner's expense at least every three years, all of which would be required before gun ownership would be any less than a felony with mandatory prison time of at least five years for a first offense of possession outside the home, whether or not used during the commission of a crime. Subsequent convictions would result in greater prison time. That, plus banning completely the sale, except for military and police use, of assault weapons and the clip ammunition for them, imposing mandatory sentences of twenty-five years for sale of same and twenty years for possession, would end these mass shootings very quickly. Would it eradicate all gun violence or violence generally? Of course not. But it would, in time, eliminate the sort of mass shootings which have become epidemic and disruptive of life and the sense of security for everyone in the country.
It is time to tell the NRA to go to hell. Conny Donny would be their good friend in the White House and mass shootings would only increase in frequency and numbers of victims. What is his version of "law and order", constructing walls around every city also and allowing in only authorized persons?
Proper remedial action may be gauged by applying the old Learned Hand formula for determining the extent of reasonable regulation of any object, weighing the social utility of the particular object against the extent to which limitation is sought and the cost to society of affording that limitation, not running afoul the while, in the instance of gun control, of any actual Constitutional restriction on governmental power, not the glossy one sought as a given by gun nuts, ignoring the "well-regulated militia" clause of the Second Amendment and thus the proper power of the Government to restrict that supposed unlimited "right"—ratified at a time when powder-charged, single-shot muskets and pistols were the only "arms" capable of being borne—, in whatever manner is consistent with a "well-regulated militia".
By the way, there is a way to stop truck attacks, whether loaded with real explosives or only fake explosives, by simply setting up a couple of rows of movable concrete barricades to block traffic on motorways which are temporarily closed for mass gatherings of one sort or another, with those barricades backed up by two criss-crossed rows of police vehicles. Even penetration of such redundant barriers would slow a vehicle down and sufficiently alert police that they could quickly enough take further, forceful action to stop the movement of such a vehicle or vehicles. One thing is quite clear: it does not require a "declaration of war" by the United States, which, if the idiot understood his history, we never even had in Vietnam.
"Television Is Here" tells of a demonstration at the Armory-Auditorium this night of the
new miracle of television. The new medium had great potential in the
field of education and could have a dramatic effect on the nation's
I.Q. It could bring arts
It ranked with radio and the telephone as a revolutionary new development. Charlotte would be the first to receive television transmissions in the Carolinas when WBTV started broadcasting later in the summer.
"Scott's New Campaign" finds that the new campaign of Governor Kerr Scott to eliminate petty graft from State Government to be commendable, even though the graft targeted was on a small scale, such as use after hours of State vehicles by the Highway Commission and State employees obtaining free meals at State prison facilities. Multiplied several times, the savings from elimination of these practices would save thousands of dollars of taxpayer money.
Drew Pearson tells of six State Department stenographers being kept busy the previous week retyping and toning down the American white paper on China, taking out allegations that certain relatives of Chiang Kai-Shek were crooks. The reason was that for the previous three months, new Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson had been urging the State Department and Secretary Acheson to support Chiang's Kuomintang. Mr. Johnson was a former attorney and personal friend to the brother-in-law of Chiang, Dr. H. H. Kung. Secretary Acheson's plan for Chinese-American relations based on an anti-Chiang policy had been voted down by the National Security Council five to one, favoring continued support for the Chiang regime.
Mao Tse-Tung's statement of support for Russian Communism and the indications that the Chinese Communists intended rough treatment for American diplomatic personnel, as evidenced by the beating up of Vice-Consul William Olive, had swayed the Council to vote against Mr. Acheson's proposal. The Joint Chiefs proposed a ring of defenses around Red China, including Japan, Formosa, and the Philippines, plus Burma, India, and Siam, in addition to the small part of South China where Chiang was defending. General MacArthur supported this approach.
Ambassador Leighton Stuart had warned all American diplomats in China that the beating of Vice-Consul Olive was only a first step in a campaign to brand all American diplomats in the country spies.
Congressman John F. Kennedy of
Massachusetts had been elected from Boston in 1946 as a "fighting,
aggressive champion of labor". He was also the son of former
Ambassador to Britain Joseph Kennedy, an admirer of conservative
columnist Westbrook Pegler
Wethinks they protest
We assume that the subject of that subcommittee hearing, incidentally, was whether and to what extent to require loyalty oaths for union officers and company officers, as required by the new Senate labor bill, a requirement only of union officers under Taft-Hartley, for access to NLRB services.
Former New York Governor Herbert Lehman and New York boss Ed Flynn had been going back and forth over whether Governor Lehman would announce his candidacy for the special election in November for the Senate seat vacated by retiring Robert Wagner, filled on an interim basis by Governor Dewey's appointment of John Foster Dulles, not going to run for the Republicans. But Mr. Lehman, knowing he would have a tough fight for the seat and wanting someone on the ticket with him as a New York mayoral candidate stronger than Mr. Flynn's friend, John Cashmore, being pushed by Mr. Flynn, had delayed his announcement.
There was nothing of late heard from Elizabeth Bentley, whose HUAC testimony the previous August had started the ball rolling which led to the indictment of Alger Hiss for perjury, though she never implicated him in the Government spy ring which she described. She had left behind a $500 hotel bill, however, which HUAC chairman John Wood was trying to get authority from Congress to settle.
Twenty-five Senators were having to trade offices to make way for John Foster Dulles because of seniority rules, and Mr. Dulles would only be there for a few months.
Marquis Childs makes some "obvious" predictions for the remainder of the current session of Congress. First, it would not approve an arms aid program for Western Europe. Second, because of that fact, enthusiasm in Western Europe for the NATO pact would fade, reducing its effectiveness by half.
The inaction by Congress could reverse the trend toward Russia being on the defensive for the first time, once again supplying them the initiative, perhaps to take up both infiltration by fifth columns and actual military offensives.
Senator Robert Taft, who was standing opposed at present to military aid to back up NATO, appeared as an obvious villain in the process; but it was too late to look for villains. For under the American system of divided powers, rapid response in a prolonged crisis might be impossible. Secretary of State Acheson had been alone among the foreign ministers signing the NATO agreement who was unable to answer definitely whether the Government he represented would approve the pact.
If that lack of cooperation by Congress continued, then chances were that the opportunity for a cooperative pact would be thrown away, as it was following World War I.
James Marlow discusses the steel labor dispute, reflecting back to January, 1946 at the start of the first major postwar steel strike when it could have stultified postwar recovery by cutting across so many industries, from automobiles to refrigerators, interrupting thereby the means for postwar reconversion to a peacetime economy. But the strike lasted only a month, not long enough to throw the economy off kilter. America then climbed to the historical peak of economic prosperity.
Two days earlier, the President had announced that the economy was slipping, and economists were predicting that it would only get worse unless more business investment would take place to expand production and therefore increase employment to give more people money to spend.
If a steel strike were to occur, there would be about a million more unemployed, with thousands more impacted in steel-dependent industries. Such could have a dramatic worsening impact on the economy.
Thus, the President had asked that no strike occur for 60 days while his special fact-finding board investigated the dispute, a proposal to which the steelworkers and Jones & Laughlin Steel had agreed. But U.S. Steel, the largest steel company, had rejected the plea and urged the President to use his power under Taft-Hartley to seek an 80-day injunction. Thus, the antagonism between the steelworkers and management had become worse.
It should be noted that the President was refraining from taking advantage of Taft-Hartley as it would foredoom any hope of getting a better bill out of the House than had emerged from the Senate on reform of Taft-Hartley, part of which was the President's urging of abandonment of the injunction provisions. The Senate had retained those provisions and added the authority to seize plants of struck industries affecting the national welfare. To have resorted to use of the injunction provision would have appeared either hypocritical or at least giving in to the notion that the injunction provision was, after all, necessary to effective resolution. The President had stated that it was premature in any event to use it. And so he did what his own proposal urged, recommendation of a 60-day cooling off period during which a fact-finding board would investigate the dispute and recommend resolution.
The President had recently reaffirmed, despite the Senate action in retaining most of Taft-Hartley, that he was not abandoning his efforts at repeal of the Act and substituting for it a modified version of the Wagner Act, a major promise to labor during the 1948 campaign.
A letter writer finds the President's optimism on the economy to be seductive to traders in the stock market who, in turn, had lost money during the year.
A letter writer objects to the fact that many Americans died for want of ability to afford adequate medical care. He wonders if it would be "socialistic" to have a Federal Health Department provided with enough funding to give medical care of the best sort to the indigent.
Hey, all you have to do is find a way to go on the tv and spew off whatever comes to your mind about any topic about which you know little or nothing, as long as you do so in an unhesitating, unblinking manner, and have your hair combed just right and your rouge on properly, even if you happen to be a closet alcoholic or pill popper, as most of the Foxymorons obviously are, make millions per year for your sponsors doing so, and you won't need to worry about affordable health care. Then you can say all you want that it is socialism meant to bring the masses up to your level of royalty, terribly objectionable.
Journalists were never intended, along with teachers and ministers, to become millionaires or receive large annual salaries relative to the rest of the population. There is good reason for that, to preserve not only a feeling of empathy for the people of ordinary means but to live as they live and thus understand daily the issues they face rather than trying with propaganda to herd them, for political avarice, into particular boxed agendas in furtherance of the moneyed interests who pay their salaries and keep them in high fashion.
The American public has a right to
know, every bit as much as they do of presidential candidates, how
much these airheads
Links-Date — Links-Subj.