The Charlotte News

Tuesday, July 5, 1949

THREE EDITORIALS

Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that Senator Tom Connally of Texas opened debate on Senate ratification of the twenty-year NATO treaty by calling for its swift approval to achieve the necessity of nations standing together against potential Communist attack. He said that the treaty did not automatically commit the country to fight in the event of attack on one of the signatory nations or obligate Senators voting for it to approve the proposed subsequent military aid to the Western European NATO members. But liberty, he said, had to be preserved even if "purchased in blood".

Senator Taft had been critical of the arms program, wanting it to be limited to a continuance of the Truman Doctrine with respect to Greece and Turkey, while restricting additional Western European military aid to France.

In Berlin, the four-power Kommandatura, moribund since March, 1948 when the Russians walked out, was revived by agreement of the four deputy military governors. A joint statement said that the action was taken in furtherance of the agreement at the Paris Foreign Ministers Council meeting to form a live-and-let-live arrangement for Berlin as a modus vivendi until a more permanent arrangement could be made at a future Council meeting.

In New York, the perjury trial of Alger Hiss resumed, with the judge giving the schedule for the remainder of the trial, a short bit of further testimony to be presented the following day, with summations to follow through Thursday morning. The prosecution this date rested after a failed attempt to get the court to reconsider its ruling denying the appearance of the former wife of Gerhardt Eisler. The Government had presented the testimony of a man who said that the Woodstock Typewriter Co. leased a location in Washington on K Street between May 1 and sometime in early August, 1938, relevant to the Government's attempt to connect the Hiss Woodstock typewriter, produced in evidence by the defense, to the State Department documents which Whittaker Chambers claimed Priscilla Hiss, wife of the defendant, had typed.

Nearly all of the nation's miners returned to work after their annual paid vacation, pursuant to direction from UMW president John L. Lewis, despite not having a new contract. They would work an indefinite number of three-day weeks pending negotiations, breaking the longstanding tradition of the union of not working until a contract was formed.

The worst accident death toll in the nation's history was recorded during the holiday weekend, with a final number of 296 traffic-related deaths, 303 drownings, and 214 other deaths in violent accidents, a total of 813 no longer among the living. The previous record had been 628, established in 1941. The previous year, 571 deaths had been recorded over the three-day period. The National Safety Council had predicted that 290 would die in traffic accidents. Texas led the grim totals with 47 dead, followed by New York and Michigan, each with 46. None were recorded in Nevada and the District of Columbia. Cook County in Illinois reported only one death, believed a record low for that county, embracing Chicago.

But obviously, there are no people in Nevada. And everyone left D.C. and simmering Chicago and went to Texas, New York and Michigan, accounting for their lopsided figures.

In Sonoma, Calif., a 27-year old woman of Berkeley, wearing only a tee-shirt, was found running down a hillside crying, saying to picnickers she encountered that she had been raped and beaten by a man named "Hank", who, unknown to her at the time, had already killed two men with a four-pound stone pestle once used by Indians to grind grain. She was in serious but not critical condition. The bodies of the two men were then discovered by law enforcement in a cabin owned by one of the men, located within the Valley of the Moon, the same area where author Jack London had made his home. One of the dead men, a member of a family dating to the days of the California goldrush in 1849, had introduced the woman to "Hank", telling her that he was an old friend. Hank then came to her the previous morning in a 1941 Buick convertible and told her that her friend had broken his arm, asking that she accompany him to the cabin. As they reached the cabin, Hank struck her over the head and began raping her.

In Los Angeles, the couple who had been reported Saturday as robbed at gunpoint by a man who was then accosted by the teenage boy of the couple and, wrestling the man's gun from him, fatally shot the man, were married Sunday as planned, a picture of them appearing from the hospital where the boy was recovering from his gunshot wound inflicted by the man during the struggle.

In Charleston, S.C., a swimmer at Folly Beach seeking to rescue a person clinging to a raft overturned by a swift current suffered a leg cramp. A fisherman from Gastonia, N.C., then came to the aid of both, utilizing his fishing line first to effect rescue of the person clinging to the raft, then, in the same manner, hauling in the swimmer, leaving only two strands of fishing line intact by the end of the ordeal.

The 43-day drought in the Northeastern states had killed or spoiled 50 million dollars worth of crops, including four million dollars of damage to potato crops on Long Island, N.Y.

Governor Kerr Scott of North Carolina was considering living for the ensuing few months on his farm at Haw River because the Governor's Mansion in Raleigh was being redecorated and smelled of fresh paint.

The Governor said that he would back the Highway Commission's request for immediate issuance of 50 million dollars worth of the four-year, 200-million dollar bond issue for rural road improvements, as voted June 4.

Tom Fesperman of The News tells of the Charlotte Technical Institute being a complete flop as it had never gotten beyond the planning stage to actual existence. Its planners were from N.C. State and it was to be similar to a State trade school at Morehead City, designed to prepare young people for skilled trades such as auto mechanics.

On the editorial page, "Baruch Scores Again" tells of the Washington Post and the New York Times having editorialized that Bernard Baruch had been right when he criticized recently the Administration for having in place no contingency plan for mobilization in the event of a new war, notwithstanding the President's response that Mr. Baruch was "misinformed". Mr. Baruch had claimed that the White House had torpedoed such a plan by the National Security Resources Board, leading to the resignation the previous December of its former director, Arthur Hill, a claim the President denied. Mr. Baruch had retorted that the President would only need to check White House files to verify his comments.

The Board had floundered since the departure of Mr. Hill, as it was under the temporary direction of Presidential adviser John Steelman, after the withdrawn nomination of Mon Wallgren when the Senate tabled his nomination for his lack of experience in the area.

The President, the piece states, did not want a strong Board, as related in a quoted statement from the President to Mr. Hill in spring, 1948, saying that the proper role of the Board was to advise the President and not coordinate national security programs of the Government among the departments and agencies, thus implying final power resting with the Board in this area.

The Hoover Commission, by contrast, recommended an active role by the Board in planning for mobilization of resources in the event of war. For it to be otherwise, said the Commission, would lead to the dominance of the military over civilian industrial and resource areas of the country.

The piece concludes that there was no more important job to be done than working out such a contingency plan for mobilization for war, especially given the billions being spent for defense and foreign aid. It regards Mr. Baruch's statements, therefore, as a notable public service.

"Passing of a Communist" discusses the death of Bulgarian Premier Georgi Dimitrov of natural causes in Moscow. He had been considered the most important Communist leader outside Russia. He had been indicted by the Nazis in 1933 for the Reichstag fire, but, conducting his own defense, managed to achieve acquittal. In 1934, he was elected secretary-general of the Comintern, which he directed until 1943. Having been in exile from his native Bulgaria for 20 years, he returned in 1945 at the end of the war and became a member of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, then, in 1946, Premier.

In that latter position, he had engineered the execution of Nikola Petkov, the agrarian leader of Bulgaria, arranged mutual assistance pacts with the other Balkan nations, bitterly attacked the U.S. and Britain, and ousted his second in command for not hewing the party line. Throughout his life, he had followed cold, cruel violence to obtain his objectives, was more an "ideological robot" than a man. His death would not be mourned in the democratic world as it was in Russia and its satellites.

"Case of 'The Trenton Six'" discusses the six black men in Trenton, N.J., previously convicted of murdering a storekeeper and sentenced to death, having had their convictions reversed the previous week by the New Jersey Supreme Court and given a new trial. The American Civil Rights Congress, which, along with the N.A.A.C.P., had taken up the defense of the case on appeal, had termed it a "Northern Scottsboro case", in reference to the nine black teenagers arrested for rape, eight of whom were convicted in Alabama in 1931, later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The police had extracted confessions from the Trenton defendants through coercive tactics, the primary ground for reversal. The first defendant arrested had confessed and implicated the other five defendants, but only after five days of grilling by the police. Four of the co-defendants were questioned for four days each. They claimed that they were then forced to sign confessions.

The piece applauds the reversal and condemns such coercive tactics, even if not reaching the level of the "rubber hose" treatment. It hopes that the case would serve as example to other police agencies across the country.

Drew Pearson tells of the angry conflict between Congressman John Lesinski, chairman of the House Education & Labor Committee, and member John Barden of North Carolina, regarding the Barden substitute Federal aid-to-education bill, banning use of the funds for any private schools and for transportation and health services for public and private schools, the latter provision to circumvent the Supreme Court allowance of such necessary services to parochial schools, held not to be violative of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, as long as the necessary services were supplied to public schools.

Mr. Lesinki, a Catholic, had been quoted in the press as calling Mr. Barden, a Presbyterian, a "bigot"—as had Francis Cardinal Spellman. Mr. Barden had then accused Mr. Lesinski of not speaking the truth. Mr. Lesinski claimed that the press had misquoted his statement. Mr. Barden said that such was a "cowardly retreat" and that anyone had the right in America to oppose something without having his patriotism questioned.

The House bell then rang, summoning members to the floor.

Freshman Representative Andrew Jacobs of Illinois, an attorney, had recently refused to represent a constituent in a legal matter because of his duty to the Congressional district of Illinois which he represented.

The gas and oil lobby scored a victory when the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee exempted from Federal rate controls natural gas sold to pipeline companies. The vote was 7 to 5. The bill opened the door to unlimited price increases on retail natural gas. Senator Lyndon Johnson of Texas, who was elected to vote the opposite of former Texas Senator Pass-the-Biscuits Pappy Lee O'Daniel, but had been of late slowly veering to those positions, had led the effort to steamroll the bill through the Committee, prompting two members, Senators Owen Brewster and Warren Magnuson, to walk out of the hearings. Senator Ernest McFarland, after Senator Johnson's presentation, demanded an immediate vote, prompting objection from Senator Brewster. Senator Ed Johnson, chairman of the Committee, then agreed with Senator McFarland and the two dissenting Senators departed from the hearing. The chairman eventually allowed them two days later to cast their votes against the bill.

King Farouk of Egypt had been given a tour of Hitler's former yacht when it recently reached Cairo during a world transit. He had been particularly interested in the dictator's special lightweight binoculars and, despite hints from the crew that he surrender them before leaving the yacht, took them with him when he departed, along with the case the crew had presented to him as the final hint.

Joseph Alsop suggests that Senator Taft had shown deft legislative leadership in getting his amendments to Taft-Hartley passed by the Senate, despite the opposition of Senate Majority Leader Scott Lucas, who had informed the President the day before the key vote on the provision for injunctions that the Senate would pass the bulk of the Administration's bill.

Senator Taft had managed to convince, for instance, Indiana Senator Homer Capehart, standing for re-election in 1950, to cast his vote with his fellow Republicans on the issue, despite labor opposition.

The bill, if passed by the House, would likely be vetoed by the President, and so it remained to be seen what support of the Taft amendments would do to the Republicans and their allies among Southern Democrats, the coalition which effected the result by a vote of 46 to 44, with six Republicans voting nay.

Senator Taft was really after the GOP presidential nomination in 1952. But Governor Dewey, not supportive of Senator Taft's wing of the party, appeared poised to act as kingmaker at the next convention and then take as his reward a position such as Secretary of State. There would be, however, opposing forces who were displeased with Governor Dewey's "me-too" stance during the 1948 campaign, giving the odds to Senator Taft for the nomination.

But if he were to be defeated in the 1950 Senate race in Ohio, his brand of Republicanism would be finished forever. Such a defeat would send the Republicans who stood with him on the labor vote running for cover, likewise the Southern Democrats. Mr. Alsop thus predicts that the 1950 mid-term elections would determine where the country would be heading in 1952.

Marquis Childs tells of the President considering a trip to both Hawaii and Alaska, should Congress adjourn by mid-August. He would return with stops along the West Coast, in Washington and, possibly, California. For the most part, the trip would be a vacation, but he would also be inspecting the two territories for his own better understanding of the issue of statehood, which he favored.

An observer had predicted that the President would run again in 1952, even though he had never said anything suggesting that he might. Others close to the President had said the same.

The President was exercising clear political judgment with a long view to the future of the Democratic Party, countering the internal opposition by the Southern Democrats. He remained loyal to those who had been loyal to him in 1948. For instance, Bernard Baruch, who had rejected entreaties to raise campaign funds for the President in the fall, was no longer a trusted adviser.

A letter writer praises Duke Power for development and preservation of the state's natural resources, such as its contributions to the betterment of the Catawba River.

A letter writer supports the former letter writer who had criticized the newspaper's June 21 editorial, "Separation of Church and State", as intolerance in the guise of democracy.

She is mixed up, too. Go to church and get some real religion and forget about all the garbage you have been fed by political hacks interested in your vote to line their pockets with money for spiritual dispensations. Also, get a proper education on the Constitution, not what the Fox tells you it means.

A letter writer finds England cuittling the President with praise for his efforts on their behalf.

What would you do, bomb them?

Rasputin, that is Rasmussen, today has come out with polling data showing, supposedly, that 54 percent of likely voters "disapprove" of the FBI's recommendation, announced yesterday, not to seek an indictment against former Secretary of State Clinton, while 37 percent approve and 10 percent are undecided, even if the figures add up to 101 percent.

That sounds bad, especially given that Rasmussen last week showed a sudden shift of nine percent in their presidential preference poll, from a five percent lead for Secretary Clinton to a four percent lead for the Republican. But, to show how they came to these skewed results regarding the FBI recommendation, the question they asked of voters in the poll was as follows:

The FBI has concluded that Hillary Clinton potentially exposed top secret information to hostile countries when she used a private e-mail server as secretary of State, but the agency has decided not to seek a criminal indictment of her. Do you agree or disagree with the FBI’s decision not to seek a criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton in this matter?

First, this ridiculous "poll" was conducted by telephone on the day the FBI announced its decision, meaning that few had the opportunity to hear the full statement of FBI Director James Comey and digest it before answering the question. A better and more informative approach would have been to ask, first, whether the respondent had read or heard all of the FBI Director's 15-minute statement and then provide the breakdown of respondents based on those who had and had not done so.

Second, the question is obviously loaded to achieve a predisposed result, leading respondents to the desired answer.

What would be the difference, if a polling organization asked the question this way:

The FBI has said that "no reasonable prosecutor" would seek criminal charges against former Secretary of State Clinton as no criminal violations were found to have occurred and the Bureau therefore has decided not to recommend to the Department of Justice that it seek an indictment for conduct related to her sending and receiving official State Department e-mails via her private home computer server. Do you agree or disagree with the FBI's recommendation not to seek a criminal indictment of former Secretary of State Clinton?

Would the results not be at least the opposite of the above percentages? as the question, far more consistent, in brief, with the general tenor of Director Comey's statement than the thoroughly misleading cherry-picked statement prefatory to the question presented by Rasmussen, would naturally lead the respondent to agreement with the decision, not the other way about as does Rasmussen's version.

Moreover, how would the result differ a week from now once people have a chance to understand better the FBI findings? and realize also that former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did the very same thing, transmitting and receiving some official State Department e-mails containing classified information on their private home servers. Should not therefore an additional question be addressed to those who disagree with the FBI decision, as a check on those respondents for party bias, asking whether they think also that Secretaries Powell and Rice ought be indicted if the inspector general for the State Department were to find that they followed the same practice in this regard as Secretary Clinton?—as the inspector general found earlier in the year.

Of course, Rasmussen, being skewed to grab headlines, will not utilize such a cleaned up and far more informative methodology.

Rasmussen is notoriously skewed in their polling samples and questions, has been for years, leaning toward Republican candidates. So we present this bit of information to show how some polls skew their results and thus are not to be trusted. Sometimes it is done through the content of the question, as here. Sometimes it is done through skewed polling samples, not following the electoral trends of recent past elections or bumping the samples to accord predictive models for this election, the models being manipulated to favor one candidate or the other, as obviously Rasmussen has done with their presidential preference poll during the previous week. For it not only sticks out as a sore thumb, completely divergent from all the other presidential preference polls which, for the most part, show Secretary Clinton with a solid lead of between five and 12 points, but it has swung, quite anomalously, nine points during one week without any reason whatsoever from external events. Nothing happened between June 21-22 and June 28-29 to change the results so dramatically, and no other poll registered such results or any significant change during that time period. What happened to cause the dramatic shift in Rasmussen's results?

Obviously, Rasmussen changed their methodology, trying to promote their poll by seeking headlines through any method they could muster to skew the results. Publishing such results grossly disserves the public interest, as most assuredly does their current poll regarding the FBI recommendation, flawed ab initio by the leading nature of their question.

The conclusion is inescapable that Rasmussen, that is, Rasputin, is a completely unreliable poll.

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.