The Charlotte News
Wednesday, June 7, 1950
TWO EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that U.N. Secretary-General Trygve Lie, by letter and radio message, told the U.N. members that unless Communist China were seated in the body, allowing the boycotting Russians then to return, there could be no progress toward world peace. He urged support for his ten-point, twenty-year peace plan and said he would push the plan when the General Assembly convened in September.
Secretary of State Acheson told a press conference that the U.S. opposed any rearmament of West Germany to bolster security of the West. Joint Chiefs chairman General Omar Bradley had stated to a Congressional committee the previous day that rearming West Germany would strengthen the West militarily, but also said that he was not advocating doing so. Secretary Acheson also said that he would consider any proposal for achieving peace which Mr. Lie proposed but that there was no magic formula available for ending the cold war, that the Western powers should go forward with their plan to "create conditions of strength" against Russian expansion.
The President replied to criticism leveled by the VFW against Thomas Finletter, the new Air Force Secretary, for being a member of the United World Federalists, favoring world government. He told the commander of the VFW that if they would spend more time finding out the good points of a man rather than trying to tear him down, it would be of more help to the country. He said that there was not a more able public servant than Secretary Finletter. He added, "All this howl about organizations a fellow belongs to gives me a pain in the neck," and said he would bet that he and the commander had belonged to organizations which they wished they had not joined.
Cotton textile manufacturers from the North and South told a House committee that they opposed the plan to cut tariffs on foreign goods, proposed to provide needed dollars to foreign countries.
The Senate voted approval of a resolution introduced by Senator Lister Hill of Alabama and nine other Senators to investigate reports that there were as many as 2,500 homosexuals and moral perverts among Government employees, authorizing $10,000 to the Senate Executive Expenditures Committee for the purpose. The State Department reported that 91 perverts had been forced to resign from the Department.
Someone first needs to define what a
"pervert"
In Oslo, Norway, Eleanor Roosevelt unveiled a statue of FDR, erected as a tribute to the late President by the Norwegian people.
In the California primaries, in which candidates were allowed to file in both party primaries, Governor Earl Warren, with a third of the precincts reporting, was leading decisively the gubernatorial race in the GOP primary by a nearly seven to one margin over James Roosevelt, son of the late President, while Mr. Roosevelt was leading Governor Warren in the Democratic primary, albeit by a smaller margin. The total in both primaries for Governor Warren was 633,000 votes to Mr. Roosevelt's 356,500.
Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas was leading the Democratic Senate primary two to one over newspaper publisher Manchester Boddy and had been declared the winner, and Congressman Richard Nixon had won, without serious contest, the Republican nomination. Mr. Nixon had placed third in the Democratic primary.
In South Dakota, Senator Chan Gurney was defeated in the Republican primary by seven-term Representative Francis Case.
Near Fairfield, Ill., the previous day, Roy Shelton, the second eldest of five brothers, three of whom had been involved for decades in Southern Illinois gang warfare, had been killed, as had two of his brothers previously, by gunfire. After being shot in the back and groin by an assailant hiding in nearby underbrush, Mr. Shelton had fallen from the harrow-and-disk rig he had been using to cultivate his farm and was badly mutilated when the machine ran over him. Neighbors said that the slain brother had not been involved in the family gang. A third brother, who had been involved in the gang, had also been shot on two occasions but had recovered from his wounds. Another brother in the gang had been fired upon the prior Monday but escaped without injury.
In Raleigh, Willis Smith called for a runoff primary against Senator Frank Graham, to be held June 24, after Senator Graham on May 27 had won the initial primary by a little over 53,000 votes but failed by about 5,000 votes to achieve a majority among the three major candidates, including former Senator Robert Rice Reynolds, who had receive 59,000 votes. Mr. Smith said that he believed that it was his duty to ask for the runoff after receiving a lot of mail from supporters urging him to do so. Mr. Smith had carried Mecklenburg County, with 14,963 votes to Senator Graham's 10,246, former Senator Reynolds's 1,364, and 110 for the fourth candidate in the race.
In Charlotte, the Park & Recreation Commission decided to ask the City Council for approval of a one-cent increase in the tax levy for parks and recreation facilities, but informal sentiment of the Council members was predominantly against the proposal.
In Charlotte the previous night, a man shot his 22-year old wife to death with a shotgun, following the count of three being counted off by a voice on a radio mystery show, "Counter Spy". According to the victim's sister who was present at the time of the shooting, the couple had argued earlier in the day regarding $15 which the husband had promised his wife. He had fired the shotgun once earlier in the day and then pointed it at his wife when she arrived home from work, later, after dinner, killing her. The husband was arrested after admitting the shooting but said that he did not intend to kill his wife as he loved her. It was the fourth homicide within two weeks in the city and the tenth since the beginning of the year. There were eleven homicides in 1949.
On the editorial page, "Handwriting on the Wall" discusses the Monday trio of Supreme Court decisions on racial segregation, in each case striking down segregation, in railroad dining cars by Federal statutory interpretation, in ordering admission of qualified black students to the University of Texas Law School for want of a separate-but-equal black law school in the state, and prohibiting segregated dining, classroom, and library seating for a black doctoral student at the University of Oklahoma, deemed violative of the Equal Protection Clause. The case of Sweatt v. Painter out of the University of Texas did not reach the constitutionality of segregation per se, as the Court decided the case on the basis of the separate-but-equal doctrine not having been satisfied.
The piece finds that the Court had thereby weakened the foundations of segregation as enunciated in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment could be satisfied by separate but equal facilities.
Such a contention is only partially correct as the railroad case did not involve Plessy or constitutional doctrine and Sweatt essentially reaffirmed that which had been decided by the Court in 1938, that separate-but-equal doctrine and the Fourteenth Amendment could only be satisfied by truly equal facilities, and in the case of graduate and professional schools, by equal in-state facilities. The McLaurin v. Oklahoma case did help to undermine segregation within the state-supported institutional setting. Still, the outlawing of segregated public schools would not occur until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, holding Plessy doctrine to be outmoded as not having fulfilled its intended function and thus not satisfying the Fourteenth Amendment.
The piece finds that segregation as a moral principle was indefensible, but that more was at stake in a system dating back generations, not therefore susceptible to being overturned by mere legislation or judicial interpretation without creating chaos, likely to be more detrimental to the national welfare and the nation's citizens than continuing segregation. Segregation could, however, it posits, be worn down gradually—which, essentially, as the piece recognizes, the Court was doing over the course of the prior twelve years, giving the South time to adjust on its own, and would do again in the Brown implementing decision of 1955, holding that desegregation of public schools would need take place "with all deliberate speed".
The editorial concludes that the handwriting was on the wall, with four lawsuits pending in North Carolina, three to afford equal public school facilities and one to integrate the UNC Law School—seventy percent of the student body of which, in 1938, had approved of its integration—, and that the State thus needed to get busy in bringing black schools up to the standard of white schools, it having been found by the Education Commission in 1948 that the equipment and physical plant of black schools in the state were woefully deficient to that of white schools.
The truth was, of course, that institutionalized racism was so accepted in the South generally, even among the "best people", that, in the face of obscurantist resistance, emblematic of which were the recurrent Senate filibusters to Federal civil rights legislation, no great progress could be made, despite individual efforts here and there by jurists, educational leaders, state and national political leaders, writers and journalists. The largest segment of the population was so full of superstition and nonsensical fear of public school integration that it could not have occurred without Brown and the host of lawsuits to enforce it afterward, through 1971 and the Swann decision out of Mecklenburg County. It was an era of slow adjustment which had to be done the way it was done, by the Federal courts and Congress, for societal integration to come to pass. Individual state by state effort, as counseled by the editorial, simply was unrealistic, especially in the Deep South states, after 73 years had passed since the end of Reconstruction with precious little progress having been made toward achieving, pervasively, equality of the races in any respect.
The violence attendant that troubling era was wholly in vain, as surely as had been the Civil War. But it was difficult to impossible to convince the lesser lights of that reality, stewed as they were in the demagogic rhetoric urging maintenance of their "superiority" over someone in the society based on a readily identifiable badge, just as it was in 2016 to convince the same sort of people that the present "President's" principal proposed "programs" as a candidate were outrageously unconstitutional and, in some cases, not to be achieved without committing impeachable offenses.
That said, it should be stressed that no one in American society has the right, formally or informally, to try to enforce patterns of speech, deemed by some subjectively "offensive" or "disrespectful", either through trying to cause someone to lose a job for an expression of free opinion, or in some other way to suffer for it. That is Fascism on the march, regardless of who is behind the effort, and such is disturbingly and increasingly a problem in our society, one given far too much acceptance, especially in tv land, impacting then the boobs who sit at home and passively watch it for hours on end, encouraging their reaction. No one can compel social integration; no one can compel or coerce a particular mode of thinking or speech. Employers and others who seek to do so through firings, discipline of one sort or another, or compelling of apologies by employees or members of organizations are engaging in Fascist authoritarianism, diametrically opposed to the ideals of the Constitution. The proper approach to these subjects and objections to expressed opinions or words is open and free debate on the matter, not squelching of speech or thought deemed contrary to the Royal Standard of the moment. In debate lies the only path to improvement of society, that laid down by the Founders as the proper remedy, free from the trip wires of otherwise consequent reaction and finally violence. Chilling of freedom of thought and speech always and invariably leads ultimately to reaction, eventually violent reaction. The fact that the speech or thought in question may be of a type which is personally repugnant to thou is of no consequence. For who can be the arbiter finally of what is "acceptable", especially within the context of the moment, the King?
"Balanced for Progress" tells of the Chatham News in Siler City, N.C., having published a 68-page edition titled "Balanced for Progress", noted by both the public of Chatham County and newspapermen around the state. It provided an overall view of progress in the county of industry, agriculture and commerce.
The furniture industry in the county was thriving but agriculture remained its mainstay, with poultry and dairy farming being preeminent and sheep-raising and tobacco being secondary. It concludes that the county was true to the title of the edition.
Drew Pearson tells of members of Congress, while preaching economy, evading the 15 percent transportation tax paid by everyone else in the country. They did so by claiming trips as Government business, when they were actually private. Legally, they could not do so unless the Government paid the fare. Some members were signing their own exemption certificates in violation of the law. The violations had been reported to the IRB but no action had been taken.
Former OSS director General "Wild Bill" Donovan had told Senate investigators, regarding the Amerasia case, that his operative during the war, Frank Bielaski, had operated outside the law in breaking into the offices of the magazine, as had the FBI in breaking into one defendant's home, in both instances illegally seizing documents which eventually necessitated two plea bargains and dismissal of the cases against three other defendants who had been the subject of indictments. He believed that "John Doe" warrants should have been obtained to conduct the searches. The State Department told General Donovan that the seized secret documents in the possession of Amerasia probably were supplied by John Carter Vincent of the Department. The General told the committee that he had no new evidence and made it clear that he did not like unfair accusations. He suggested that the investigators talk to former Ambassador Patrick Hurley, as he thought Mr. Vincent was "his boy".
Joseph Alsop, in Paris, finds fakery to exist within the Western defense effort, as illustrated by the President's request for 1.25 billion dollars in foreign arms aid, including 75 million for Southeast Asia, inclusive of Indo-China. Secretary of State Acheson, at the recent foreign ministers conference in London had promised the French all-out aid to Indo-China, to contest a Russian drive to take it. The French requested 90 million dollars initially and 300 million over the long range. Thus, trying to finance such aid from the leftovers of 75 million dollars, after money would be taken out for defense of Burma, Indonesia and other nations in Southeast Asia, was folly.
If the Communists triumphed in Indo-China, Asia would follow the same pattern. The U.S. was thus breaking its promises while ignoring the reality of what was necessary, even beyond the French requests.
The same notion was true of the entire foreign military aid program, as the 1.25 billion dollar request was also wholly inadequate. There was need for greater contribution by the NATO nations and especially the U.S.
Furthermore, only about one percent of the 200,000 tons of arms approved by the Defense Department for shipment to France had been received, and there was no indication as to when the rest would be shipped. The problem lay in depleting U.S. strategic reserves, with the need then later to replenish them. The new orders for weapons, however, had not been placed and Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson was hesitant to deplete existing resources. Meanwhile, Secretary Johnson bragged about both economy in defense and building up Western defenses, both claims apparently false.
Mr. Alsop concludes that while formation of NATO was appropriate, the U.S. having entered into it with the recognized need to be the major supplier of arms and then reneging on that obligation was wrong. Either the faking had to end or the Western front against Soviet aggression would dissolve.
Marquis Childs tells of a resolution pending in the Senate which would propose a special session of the U.N. General Assembly to debate conventional and atomic disarmament over a reasonable period with verification, the U.S. to pledge to spend the resultant defense savings on worldwide rehabilitation, including Russia and the satellite countries. The resolution was consistent with a February speech by Senator Brien McMahon, chairman of the Joint Atomic Energy Committee. He suggested spending two-thirds of the annual defense budget, about ten billion dollars, on the President's "Point Four" program of technical assistance to underdeveloped nations, on peacetime uses of atomic energy and a general program of economic rehabilitation abroad.
The impression abroad was that America's foreign policy pointed toward war and such a resolution would go a long way toward dispelling that notion, especially if supported by an information dissemination program.
Yet, both Secretary Acheson and Secretary Johnson opposed the move on the basis that the Soviets would refuse to send delegates to such a special session unless Communist China were recognized instead of the Nationalist Chinese. If such a proposal then passed the Assembly, the Soviets would claim it as another effort by the Western "warmongers" to place the Soviet sphere on the defensive. The State Department believed that it would also embarrass allies, as Prime Minister Nehru of India, who did not wish to be forced openly into either camp.
The State Department also believed that, aside from the occurrence of that possibility, talks with the Russians could only succeed when the U.S. was on parity with their military strength, not the case currently.
A letter from P. C. Burkholder, candidate for the Democratic nomination for Congress in the May 27 primary and twice previously the Republican candidate for Congress, comments on the May 30 editorial, "Weeding Out the Perennials", favoring higher filing fees for public office, to be refunded if the candidate reached a certain percentage of the vote, to weed out those, as Mr. Burkholder, who were running to advance their own private business interests through free publicity. He accuses the newspaper of heckling candidates of "courage" who happened to be of limited means, points out that President Andrew Johnson had started as a tailor and Abraham Lincoln, as a rail splitter. He adds that if the editors thought it was so ridiculous for a shrubbery salesman, as in his case, to run for Congress, then they ought be slopping hogs, suggests that they would not make very good shrubbery salesmen for being so discourteous to customers.
Don't you worry, P.C. In the coming decades, North Carolina will be represented in the U.S. Senate by a radio and tv station announcer, a hog raiser, and, currently, a former appliance and lawnmower salesman. You will get your wish, if not good government, while rendering the state a national snickering stock in the process.
At least the state, unlike California, does not have in the Congress a car thief who committed insurance fraud. But that is not saying very much, is it now, Moonman?
If you want to elect these bribed clowns who bow in obeisance to Mammon at the table of corporate wealth, and think that they serve you, you go right ahead. But then don't turn around and scratch your head, like a dumb bell, and ask why the Congress does not serve your interests.
A letter from Sheriff J. Clyde Hunter of Mecklenburg County thanks the newspaper for its statements in praise of his service and re-election.
A letter writer opposes voting for more bond money and raising property taxes to pay for municipal improvements.
A letter writer praises the newspaper for two editorials of May 25, "Emissary to Washington", again endorsing Willis Smith for the Senate, and "The General Motors Contract", finding the agreement between management and the UAW to serve as a good paradigm for industry and labor getting together and meeting both sides' desires while avoiding a crippling strike for the nation.
He says that he likes Mr. Smith, but finds the G.M. contract, while good for G.M. and the UAW, not as easily obtainable in other industries, leaving the need for the Government to provide the necessary retirement benefits. And he does not like the "welfare state".
A letter writer says that he had known Senator Frank Graham for a long time and found him honest, just, fair to everyone, everywhere, regardless of race, creed or color, and that the nation needed more such persons in government.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.