The Charlotte News

Monday, March 3, 1952


Site Ed. Note: The front page reports, via Robert B. Tuckman, that the Communist truce negotiators in Korea had angrily accused the U.N. command of lying and stalling this date, but acknowledged a legal right by the U.N. to reject Russia as a neutral inspector of the armistice while insisting that the allies provide logical reasons for the rejection.

Sources in Washington said that the allies might return to the original allied proposal of having the truce supervised by a commission of belligerents, provided the Communists would acknowledge Russia as a belligerent, as the allies would never accept Russia as a neutral nation, as the Communists were insisting, preventing further progress toward an armistice.

A U.N. spokesman for the prisoner exchange subcommittee said that the session regarding voluntary repatriation had been "thoroughly unproductive and most unpleasant". At one point, the U.N. representative had asked the North Korean representative to stop screaming, as he was accusing the allies of mistreating Communist prisoners and reneging on a promise to provide information on 44,000 prisoners. The North Korean General had smiled at the rebuke and resumed in a more moderate tone.

It appeared to the U.N. representatives that the Communists were continuing to stall the talks.

Outnumbered U.S. Sabre jets shot down two enemy MIG-15s and damaged five others of an estimated 250 enemy planes flying south of the Yalu River this date in four separate battles. The kills increased the number of MIGs destroyed by Fifth Air Force planes to 200 thus far during the war. Two MIGs attacked a pair of F-51 Mustangs south of Pyongyang, far south of their usual attack areas, but both planes had hedge-hopped safely back to base. It was the first time in two days that enemy combat planes had ventured across the Yalu from Manchuria.

In ground action, only patrol scouting took place this date. On the previous day, a two-pronged allied tank squeeze of Chinese hill positions had taken place northeast and northwest of Chorwon on the western front, wiping out 25 enemy bunkers and damaging eight without loss of any tanks.

The Defense Department reported that an additional 42 U.S. battle casualties had taken place during the previous week, including seven killed and 34 wounded, with one missing in action.

Secretary of State Acheson was set to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this date to report on the results of the Lisbon NATO Foreign Ministers Council meeting. According to some members of the Committee, he would be grilled on the failure of France to impose taxes for the support of the NATO rearmament program. The Secretary had already reported to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Both reports were in executive session. The NATO meeting had determined that France would seek to increase taxes from ten percent to 15 percent, but that proposal had been rejected by the French National Assembly, causing the Government to fall on Friday. Senator Paul Douglas said that he favored decreasing the President's proposed total foreign aid budget of 10.5 billion dollars by 1.5 billion, favoring a total budget cut of seven billion dollars, four billion of which would be from defense and 1.5 billion from domestic programs. Senator Homer Ferguson favored hearing from General Eisenhower before voting on the foreign aid program.

Antoine Pinay, a moderate conservative, was planning to try to form a new Cabinet in France after the previous Government had fallen the prior Friday when the increased tax proposal was defeated. He was expected to try to form a moderate government similar to that of Edgar Faure which had just collapsed. It was considered doubtful that M. Pinay could succeed at the effort. The major roadblock was the refusal of the Socialists to sit down at the same Cabinet table with the followers of General Charles de Gaulle.

Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snyder sent a letter to the Senate Expenditures Committee, seeking to save the President's proposed reorganization of the IRB from threatened defeat in the Senate. IRB Commissioner John Dunlap appeared before the Committee as a witness for the same purpose. Some Senators had suggested that, because of the reduction of tax offices, the proposal would prevent taxpayers from bringing a tax case in the same Federal District Court where they resided, but Mr. Snyder indicated that the proposal would not impact venue, and that his position was supported by Attorney General J. Howard McGrath.

Newbold Morris, appointed by the President to clean up the executive branch, indicated that he was not as subservient to the Justice Department as some believed, that indictments on his findings would be handled by specially named lawyers and not the Justice Department, and that he would make his reports directly to the President, not the Attorney General.

In advance of the March 11 New Hampshire primary, Senator Robert Taft and Harold Stassen on the Republican side were scheduled to make appearances in the state, as was Senator Estes Kefauver on the Democratic side. Senators Leverett Saltonstall and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., of Massachusetts, Senator Frank Carlson of Kansas, Governor John Lodge of Connecticut, and Congressman Christian Herter of Massachusetts would also make appearances as surrogates for General Eisenhower. All signs indicated a close race between General Eisenhower and Senator Taft for the Republican delegates. On the Democratic side, an effort had begun to make the President look good, as a defeat to Senator Kefauver could hurt his chances for re-election if he chose to run again.

The Supreme Court, in Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, upheld 6 to 3 the constitutionality of the New York anti-Communist law which provided that persons who advocated the violent, forceful or unlawful overthrow of the Government could not be appointed to or remain in State jobs and that membership in organizations deemed subversive for having as their purpose such unlawful overthrow of the Government would constitute prima facie evidence of such unlawful advocacy, provided that no individual could be removed or denied employment thereby or any organization listed as subversive without a hearing according Due Process. Justice Sherman Minton delivered the majority opinion, finding that the claims that the statute denied due process, was void for vagueness and violated rights of free speech and assembly were not sustainable. Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo Black dissented on the basis that the statute violated free speech and thought, while Justice Felix Frankfurter dissented on the basis that the plaintiffs did not have proper standing to challenge the law as they had not yet been injured by it, thus no constitutional issue ripe for adjudication having arisen, depriving the Court of jurisdiction to rule on the case.

In Columbia, S.C., a special three-judge Federal District Court panel heard the remand of the Clarendon County public schools case, Briggs v. Elliott, which had been returned to it by the Supreme Court, indicating that before a high court decision would be reached, the lower court would need to consider the report it had ordered regarding the efforts of the schools to remedy the admitted unequal conditions between black and white facilities. NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall, later to become the first black Supreme Court Justice in 1967, argued that the County had not rectified the inequalities and therefore segregation ought be deemed per se unconstitutional and the State enjoined from enforcing segregatio, required by the State Constitution and laws. The State argued that the school officials had shown good faith and the financial ability to effect equality in the facilities. The Court took the matter under submission, indicating that it would enter a new final decree and then retain jurisdiction to punish the school officials if they did not rectify the inequalities. This case, as previously indicated, would be subsumed under the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, holding unanimously in 1954 that the separate-but-equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson had never been fulfilled since it had been established in 1896 and therefore segregation per se could not any longer be held to pass Constitutional muster under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, adopting, in its essentials, the prior dissent by Judge J. Waties Waring, a member of the prior three-judge panel in the first 2 to 1 ruling in Briggs, but having retired during February, prior to the remand being heard.

A committee of parents was petitioning for a Congressional investigation of "the medieval type inquisition" which had led to the ouster from West Point of 90 Cadets the previous summer for allegedly cribbing exam questions from previous exam papers. Almost all of the Cadets said that cheating had been going on for five to ten years at the Academy, particularly among athletes, and that the 90 who were dismissed were merely scapegoats for a serious breakdown in the honor code system. The parents' petition blamed overemphasis on football for the cheating, that it had been reported for the previous four years to Academy authorities without remedial action.

In St. Louis, the trial began of James Finnegan, former IRB collector, on charges of accepting bribes for lenient tax treatment and other official misconduct.

In Greensboro, N.C., a widely known auctioneer and real estate operator, was indicted by a Federal grand jury for income tax evasion for failing to pay about $35,000 in taxes between 1945 and 1947.

In Nice, France, an Air France airliner crashed in an olive grove this date, resulting in the deaths of 37 aboard, including an American ballet dancer and two French actresses. The remnants of a seagull was found in the air intakes of the plane's engines, indicating a possible cause of the crash.

Snow covered most of the Northeast and part of the nation east of the Rockies, the greatest depth having been reported at Smith Center, Kans., recording nine inches. In many sections, a light fog accompanied the snow, in other places turning to sleet or rain. Bitter cold continued in the northern Rockies, northern plains and Maine.

The snowy conditions would not portend, however, undue cold or fog for the players of Phog Allen this March—or, we hope, for the legacy extended thereby to the current group of cagers in a little town in North Carolina.

In Philadelphia, two St. Bernards were found hungry and exhausted in the midst of a snowstorm the previous Saturday.

Too bad they were not bulldogs.

In Little Rock, Ark., a minister reported to police that the organ was missing from his church on Sunday and detectives began checking, after which the minister called to inform that the organ had been found, that a member of the congregation had borrowed it for a Saturday night party and was late in returning it.

What did they play?

On the editorial page, "Here We Go Again Dept." tells of the several anguished reactions by Congressional leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, after the President had proposed in January his 85.4 billion dollar budget, but then finds that in the first four appropriations measures to emerge from the House Appropriations Committee the previous week, three provided for only small reductions from that requested by the President while also increasing the amounts above that which had been appropriated in the same categories the prior year. It concludes therefore that while Congress preached economy, it did not practice it, that in three of the previous five years, it had spent more money than the President had sought, and, if these first four measures proved any yardstick, would provide no sizable reduction in the current year.

"Speak for Yourself, John" finds the reprimand handed to Greensboro industrialist and UNC trustee John W. Clark by the Greater University Board of Trustees the prior Friday to have been dignified, but firm. The Board had, by a large majority, deemed his statements regarding support of continued segregation to have been his individual responsibility, finding it inappropriate for the Board to take any official recognition of those statements and opinions. Mr. Clark had contacted the UNC Dialectic Senate, seeking the names of persons who were advocating the abandonment of segregation in the state, a move which the Senate had regarded as a threat to its freedom of thought and expression.

It asserts that the problem of racial tension would not be solved by the "application of rabid emotionalism and inflammatory language" but rather was a problem of "adjustment to new conditions", which sometimes could prove difficult because of longstanding customs and traditions. It finds that for Mr. Clark, it appeared more than simply difficult but rather was "impossible". He had a right to his views and the Board had a right to disagree with them, as it expressed in "restrained but meaningful language" which, it believes, would have its place in a "progressive and enlightened state long after the heated, angry words of Trustee Clark have faded away."

Though only tangentially related to the Clark matter, as well the subject of the next editorial of the day, we have an apology to make to the late W. J. Cash, we suppose, though, in point of fact, we were not intending in the Friday parenthetical aside to take issue with the accuracy of Mr. Cash, living in a pre-internet era when the lights of the researcher could only be informed to the extent of the available print in the library, with the reader stuck in carrels with dim lighting, made the worse by Cash's reputed strained vision and his need during the Thirties to travel by his own thumb from Shelby or Charlotte to Chapel Hill to find the more obscure research material from the past. Rather, our assumption of error regarding either the date of the article or somewhat confused repetition of the account developed from the assumption that the confusion had occurred earlier, contemporaneous with the 1903 controversy—not, as it turns out, 1902—regarding Trinity College history professor John Spencer Bassett and his ascribed greatness to Booker T. Washington, to which Josephus Daniels and other editors of the time had taken umbrage, though Mr. Daniels led the effort to have Dr. Bassett dismissed from the faculty as a result. We assumed other newspapers, as they did far and wide across and beyond the state, had picked up the controversy and, as is wont to happen at times, somewhat mischaracterized or embellished the original statement of Professor Bassett.

In fact, however, upon a little more research, we now realize that Cash framed the controversial statement of Professor Bassett correctly, that he did say in the South Atlantic Quarterly article that, aside from General Robert E. Lee, Mr. Washington was "the greatest man … born in the South in a hundred years...", just as Cash paraphrased it in The Mind of the South. (We should be mindful from our prior extensive research in 1999 on the accuracy of the book that Cash was rarely, if ever, wrong in his relation of facts, based on painstaking efforts of the time during the eleven years he labored over the manuscript.)

After the comment in question, the statement of Professor Bassett had continued after a semicolon: "but [Mr. Washington] is not a typical negro. He does not even represent the better class of negroes. He is an exceptional man; and, endowed as he is, it is probable that he would have remained uneducated but for the philanthropic intervention of white men. The race, even the best of them, are so far behind him that we cannot in reason look for his reproduction in the present generation. It is, therefore, too much to hope, for a continued appearance of such men in the near future. It is also too much to set his development up as a standard for his race. To expect it is to insure disappointment."

It was this statement, and the overall tone of the article, which Josephus Daniels found sufficiently troubling to demand dismissal of Dr. Bassett from the Trinity faculty and to print his name, on at least one occasion, as "bASSett" in the Raleigh News & Observer, at the bottom of the first column of November 3, 1903.

Granted, viewing the entire above-quoted paragraph narrowly in the modern context, it appears condescending and even, again judging by present standards, perhaps somewhat racist, in itself. But it is plain that Mr. Daniels, in 1903, was not irritated on that account, but rather because of the ascription of such greatness to Mr. Washington and, moreover, the statement in the last two pages of the piece that blacks would eventually achieve social equality.

Times were different and perceptions, inevitably colored by experience, were different in 1903, and one can never expect anything but skewed and false impressions of history and therefore of our own times by trying to engraft, by relative analogy or direct comparison, modern conceptions of equality, justice and fairness onto an age 38 years after the Civil War, in which the airplane and motorcar were brand new inventions and segregation was institutionalized, in which former slaves and former slaveholders, though the latter were not as numerous* as commonly supposed, still permeated Southern society. Too, if read in the entire context of the article, one finds it more modern than the individual paragraph quoted above might at first make it appear—there being no reasonable objection for 1903 to the usage of "negro" rather than "Negro", as the former remained the accepted convention until the 1920's, even later in some publications, just as some authors, such as James Baldwin, began using for a time "Black" rather than "black".

Certainly the tone of the last couple of pages of the article, and especially its last paragraph, begins to sound quite paternalistic, Dr. Bassett candidly admitting at one point his "share" of "race feeling", though immediately adding that despite such race feelings generally pervading society, blacks would, at some time, acquire social equality and so the only thing to be done was "adoption of these children of Africa into our American life"—meaning, in the larger context of the piece, achievement of social equality. So was he, in so writing, only seeking to reach, psychologically, some of the more educated whites, who still held "race antipathy", as he phrased it, and who would be reading such a scholarly journal of the time, through appeal to their "spirit of conciliation", as he phrases it in the last paragraph, rather than intending the statements in their most literal, condescending sense? The entire arc of the article would suggest such a broader interpretation—not unlike the approach Cash took in his book in 1941, duly advanced in tone by four decades—, especially as the outcome Professor Bassett favored, the only outcome he could imagine, short of continued and increasing violence, was for blacks to attain social equality. (Don't search for "integration", as it is not present in the publication in 1903, just as "segregation" and "separate-but-equal" are not present. But the concept of social equality, or at least something far more integrating of society than had developed as the norm in seven years of practice under the 1896 separate-but-equal doctrine, is clearly intended by Dr. Bassett. That was the very purpose of the article.)

The professor, in a time when voicing such an opinion, obviously by the reaction, was anything in the South but widely accepted, appears to have been genuinely interested in trying to suggest the means for betterment of societal conditions for all, including black citizens, who had suffered, in most instances—90 percent of the blacks then in society, he says, having derived from field slaves—, through generations of slavery and then post-Civil War meniality, even among those who had prospered within the black community, in terms of general societal acceptance, education and employment. And that was Cash's point in singling out this and other such instances where academics at the turn of the century in the South had sought such enlightenment, only to be chastised and sometimes turned out of employment, actions sometimes supported even by the better lights of a given community, such as Josephus Daniels—who, it must also be remembered, in terms of the human dynamic between momentary subject and author, was the father of Jonathan, a friend to Cash after 1938, who co-sponsored him, along with the Knopfs, for the Guggenheim Fellowship which took him, fatally as it turned out, to Mexico in summer, 1941.

And, coincidentally, the first page of Dr. Bassett's 1903 article references a case arising in Virginia about 1630, eleven years after the first African slaves had been introduced to that colony, involving the highest colonial court's sentence of whipping of a white man, Hugh Davis, for the offense of "lying with a negro", that is miscegenational relations—suggesting the historical underpinnings, passed perhaps generationally, for the vigilante activity of Klan members in Columbus and Robeson Counties during 1951, resulting in the recently reported arrests therein, the Klan having taken it upon themselves to exert the police powers of enforcement of "morals", as they viewed the matter, against either interracial relationship or any form of extramarital cohabitation of couples even if not of mixed race, the Klan-determined penalty for which having been flogging, demonstrating what century in which they fancied themselves to be living.

In any event, had we not been conducting our research in too dimly lit conditions, we would have noticed that Cash had indicated that Dr. Bassett's statement had occurred "the following year", after he had referenced 1902 in the preceding paragraph. We saw 1902 and ran with it. Sometimes, being a little too familiar with a subject can lead to careless misapprehension of the finer points when being too hasty at re-reading the material in its original book form, after more than 25 years since the last reading of the entire book. But, it all turned out just as well, as we came across the reference in the 1902 editions of the South Atlantic Quarterly to Dr. Bassett's brief review of the Walter Hines Page article on Mr. Washington, which, had we gotten the date right on the indicated article in the first instance, we would have missed. Moreover, it also served to ferret out another prior instance, the year before, in which Dr. Bassett had referred to Mr. Washington as "one of the greatest men" who had lived in the South, though, as indicated, then only echoing the sentiment expressed by Mr. Page, which, for its brevity and failure to mention the venerated Marse Robert, Mr. Daniels, perhaps, had missed.

On the other hand, since the boys over at Trinity had hung Mr. Daniels's figurative ass in effigy over the matter, perhaps he could be excused from venting some spleen. Too bad he would not live long enough to see Dean Smith—, whose college team, incidentally, we have it on good authority, is about to win the N.C.A.A. championship here in 1952—, hung in effigy over at UNC in early 1965, and therefore perhaps be subsequently amused at being included in such estimable company by the young students around the Triangle. (Despite having heard about this latter instance a few weeks or months after it occurred, we did not realize until today that we had attended the game which precipitated the hanging.) The entire basketball world, as a matter of fact, owes a great debt of gratitude to those students who participated in the hanging, as it is a little known fact that it served as a spur to Coach Smith to go on to have the coaching career he had, setting the example for Coach Wooden and others to follow in competition, whereas, without this event, he would have likely ended his career a couple of years later in mediocrity and started selling Coca-Cola, resulting in Coach Wooden, therefore, being ultimately known as having achieved two consecutive national championships but no more, while N.C. State and Duke would still have none. For, every time thereafter that he saw a season going south, or north-south for that matter, that indelible vision of students forming his effigial image, no doubt, appeared to his mind's eye, pushing him ever onward to be a better coach and leader and somewhat less the natural gentleman he was ordinarily, making for humble success being his trademark thereafter. His players, too, were infused with this rejuvenated sense of impulsion toward victory in any one of the four corners of the world, even in Winston-Salem, with time running out and the nationally third-ranked team having just tied a 3-6 opponent, then stealing, driving hurly-burly, twisting, turning as a whirling dervish out of a trap in the corner to score the winning hoop, as we also saw two years later, realizing it as prerequisite to any enjoyment from consumption of the postgame Coca-Cola, otherwise bitter to the taste amid too many salt-laden tears, as had proved again after the home loss, the first of the season, two days earlier to Princeton in those early, fateful days of 1967 when the locker room was locked and press forbidden to enter for the gruesome sight therein to behold, and never again, after that fateful Epiphanic night of January 6, 1965, having the most talented player on the team loafing at one end of the court while the defense worked with only four players at the other, all to ensure that the vestigial retinal imprint formed that night from that which stood in frightful display before Winston dormitory in abruptly interruptive contrast to the campestral quietude ordinarily pervading each Wednesday night of student retirement from the arduous toils of a day's assiduous studies would never again repeat, such that everyone could say in unison, throughout the University community, wherever its members may find themselves to this day, even unto the four corners of the world, that we, at the University of North Carolina, drink Coca-Cola and eschew the notion that either Winstons taste good or Salems bring the spring, even if coach insisted on too many Larks. It's true... So thank you, effigiaters. It is one time that the usually fallacious principle of post hoc, ergo propter hoc communicates an accurate understanding of history.

But we digress.

We do have to confess that despite Cash having indicated that Mr. Daniels had "regularly" printed Professor Bassett's name in the mockish form, we have only found the one instance of it, and that was under Mr. Daniels's nom de plume, "Rhamkatte Roaster", which is to say that it was intended, we suppose, to be lighthearted, though the editorials around the time which he also indited on the subject suggest otherwise, with career impacting results intended for Professor Bassett, all for the mere exercise of free, and entirely appropriate, speech and press. Of course, just because it does not arise in the search engine does not mean necessarily that there were not other instances of the sophomoric printing of the professor's name, though we have looked at every issue of the News & Observer around that time which mentioned Professor Bassett without finding it repeated. The one instance found preceded by a month the hanging in effigy of Mr. Daniels and so he was not bending his literary license in reaction to that. And, regardless, Professor Bassett had nothing to do with creating the "mob mentality" which led to the hanging, whereas Mr. Daniels led the editorial effort to have the professor dismissed from the faculty. (We suppose someone on the side of the professor in the episode could have retaliated with "just-us JosephUS", but that would have been equally sophomoric.)

When one considers the underlying issue, it appears, insofar as any objection to Professor Bassett's statements, all a bit silly, much ado about millimicrons of infinitesimals—but 1903 preceded our time by a couple of years, thus preventing our judgment from being fully informed of the time and place wherein these events occurred, and, contrary to popular opinion of it having been such a more pleasant, simpler time than later, we have to thank our stars we were not forced to endure it. They would have hung us, for sure, and not just in effigy.

Pardon us while we take a leaf from Coach Smith and straighten our necktie.

And if we have offended anyone who is not a bigot, white or black or in between, then probably you are one, but purblind to the fact and ought to check it. Dig yourself...

*For example, in the two states with the largest number of slaveholders in 1860, Georgia, with 41,084, and Virginia, with 52,128, they constituted 15.8 percent and 10.6 percent, respectively, of the white population, male and female, age 20 and older. In Alabama, the number of slaveholders, 33,730, constituted 14.9 percent of the 20 and older population. In Mississippi, the number was 30,943, 21 percent of the 20 and older population. North Carolina, incidentally, with the strongest abolition movement among the Southern slaveholding states, had 34,658 slaveholders, 11.7 percent of the 20 and older population. Virginia had 58,042 "free colored" and North Carolina had 30,463 in that category, Georgia, 3,500, Alabama, 2,690, and Mississippi, 773. The overall populations by states in 1860 are located here, from which we subtracted the aggregate numbers of white persons under age 20. Hinton Helper, whose Impending Crisis of the South was distributed by the Republican Party in 1860 and which was said to have helped obtain the nomination and election of Abraham Lincoln, shed some additional light on these figures in his Compendium of the Impending Crisis, basing his calculation on the 1850 census and suggesting that the numbers of slaveholders would be less than the census figures indicated for such factors as counting slaveholders more than once across state lines if an individual owned slaves in more than one state, as well as the inclusion in the census figures of "slave-hirers", whereby ordinarily non-slaveholding individuals would hire out one or more slaves for short times in a given year. Mr. Helper roughly calculated this latter category to include in 1850 about 160,000 across the slaveholding states, though utilizing a questionable methodology, extrapolating that total number from the ratio of slaveholders to non-slaveholding slave-hirers in his hometown of Salisbury, N.C., then with a population of about 2,300.

"What Now, Imperial Wizard?" discusses the Solicitor of Lumberton, Malcolm Seawell, having, in March, 1950, given the Klan organizer in Robeson County, Thomas Hamilton of Leesville, S.C., 24 hours to remove himself from the judicial district, and then the previous week, in response to Mr. Hamilton's letter in objection to the arrests of 26 Klan members in Robeson and neighboring Columbus Counties, following the series of floggings during the previous year, invited him to return to the county that he might test the resolve to have him arrested upon re-entry.

It quotes from Mr. Hamilton's letter in which he complained that the law being used, passed in 1868, to arrest members of any organization which utilized concealment of identity to effect vigilante action, had "not been recognized because it was passed by a carpetbag and scalawag government" right after the Civil War. He insisted that the Klan was not a "political secret organization" in the sense meant by the statute and was adamant that it would continue to organize in Robeson County as long as the county was a county in the state. Mr. Seawell's reply, also quoted in part, indicated that he would resign his position as Solicitor at the point when he found it necessary to obey Mr. Hamilton's instructions or accept his advice, and then invites him to present himself to the Sheriff or to let him know where he would be within the county so that the previous ultimatum could be put into effect, also advising that he not write Mr. Seawell anymore, but rather to come up and see him "at any time".

The piece asks Mr. Hamilton what he was going to do about it.

And since Mr. Seawell saw fit to apprise Mr. Hamilton that the correct spelling of the county's name was Robeson, not Roberson, we might also note again, for those unfamiliar with the place, sometimes even within the state of North Carolina, that the correct pronunciation is "Rob-e-son", with a short "ǝ", as in "relevance", not "Robe-son".

"Which One Is Lying?" seeks answer to the question as between Owen Lattimore and his accuser, former Communist Louis Budenz, as to whether Mr. Lattimore was in fact a Communist or had Communist sympathies as Mr. Budenz contended. The question was before the Senate Internal Security subcommittee, chaired by Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada, and had resulted in charges and counter-charges, vilification and name-calling. It notes that Senator Willis Smith of North Carolina, when he was substituting for the chairman, had established a reputation for dignified and fair conduct of the inquiry, not the case when Senator McCarran wielded the gavel.

It suggests that if the subcommittee wanted to determine any subversive nature of the Institute of Pacific Relations, then it ought call such persons as Life, Time and Fortune publisher Henry Luce, Pan American Airlines head Juan Trippe and its own Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan, all of whom were IPR members and some of whom were more active in the organization than Mr. Lattimore. If the subcommittee wanted to determine what subversive influences had impacted Far Eastern policy, it suggests, it ought call Governor James Byrnes of South Carolina, who had been Secretary of State during much of the period in which the events in question had taken place.

Instead, Mr. Lattimore and the subcommittee were simply backing into their respective corners, barking at each other, as Mr. Lattimore had, the previous Thursday, referred to "graduate witch burner" McCarthy, "slippery" Stassen and "the Senator from Formosa", referencing Senator William Knowland of California, while Senator Ferguson had called these statements "the Communist line" and Senator McCarran had sarcastically stated that "everybody is in bad faith except Mr. Lattimore".

It concludes that as the testimony of either Mr. Lattimore or Mr. Budenz had to be false, it hopes for a referral to the Justice Department to determine who was lying so that the public could properly evaluate the testimony before the subcommittee.

Henry Seidel Canby, in a piece titled "An Instant of Pause", appearing in the Presbyterian Outlook, indicates that some people believed that Christians and Jews were enjoying better relations in the country while others believed they were worsening. He suggests that the trouble with prejudice, similar to the spread of the common cold, was that it was infectious. He also finds it partly semantic, as the reaction to the word Negro or Jew was different between speaker and hearer from the response to the name of a known individual. There was, in the history of the world, an "intensely important instant" which determined whether a man would be recognized merely as a variety of the human species, or as an individual who could not be defined merely by his religion, race or nationality. In that instant, he finds, a person paused to look at the other, a friend or neighbor, as a human being, an observation which might make all the difference in terms of prejudice.

He suggests that during a long commute daily, readers look up and down the length of the car and, in their mind, consider one of the "convenient and uninforming lists of categories" which everyone maintained—"old American, recent immigrant, second-generation American, Chinese, Polish Jew, Southern Negro, priest, Irish politician"—then forget for the moment the "crude attempts to learn the important truths about an individual by an abstract term" and instead rely on experience and powers of divination to see each person as "one of us all who should fall or stand in our estimation for himself, for herself, so far as human sympathy can judge."

He concludes: "The brush-off by generalization is easy, but it is often one of the great lies that muddies civilization."

A piece from Pan American Highways wonders why people behaved as animals when they took to the roads, adopting a Jekyll and Hyde personality complex, changing from courteous cavaliers who removed their hats in elevators and stood aside to allow ladies to exit first, to become, behind the tiller, "a hellion on wheels propelled by a gasoline engine."

In Washington, on December 14, a sudden snow storm and blizzard had complicated the already usually complicated traffic situation in the nation's capital, as citizens, unapprised by the weatherman of the coming snow, started home all at the same time, "resulting in one of the most glorious, free-for-all traffic jams that anybody has ever seen." Tempers were demolished along with a couple of hundred fenders and the dispositions of people arriving home late. Everyone was partially to blame for the episode, with everyone seeking to beat the other to the punch in an effort to get home.

It concludes with the question with which it started, as to why people behaved like animals when they got behind the wheel of a car.

"Modern highway construction can do much to ease our traffic problems, but common highway courtesy can do some of the job at a lot less expense and a lot faster."

Mrs. Theo Davis of the Zebulon Record indicates that she was experimenting with dried milk, which she distinguishes from that which was used to feed babies, as it was cheaper than evaporated milk for using no cream and tasted "as well as could be expected."

We think it ought be "good", as any dried milk should. One performs an activity "well" but the adjectival quality of any given object ought be "good". One may, obviously, say correctly that another looks well, but that is not to communicate, necessarily, the notion that the other looks good, but rather intended only to convey the compliment of a healthy appearance, and, perhaps, Mrs. Davis used this sort of misleading analogy to come up with her conclusion that propriety dictated that the dried milk tasted well, when its taste had not a thing to do with the milk's health, which would be difficult to assess, probably, without a microscope.

Of course, we realize, after what Mrs. Davis said in her snippet presented the previous Thursday in "Turpentine Drippings", that she had forsaken care about what people thought of her grammar, as she believed no grammarian would notice her writing anyway. That's a bit insulting, Mrs. Davis, to anyone who might clap eyes on that which you set to print, also suggests a somewhat nihilistic approach to your career choice, and is not a very good or salutary observation, conducive to well-spoken or written English among the younger people, who resort to such phrases as, "She speaks good English and invites you up into her room," when it ought be, "She speaks English well and invites you up into her room," assuming she was not a common street trollop.

Drew Pearson, in San Juan, Puerto Rico, tells of a forthcoming vote in the U.S. territory on ratification of a Puerto Rican constitution. To avoid duplication of votes, each voter would be locked in the voting precinct until the vote was completed. It was one of several experiments in democracy being conducted on the island, a few miles from where Christopher Columbus had first landed in the New World aboard the Santa Maria in 1492 while seeking his passage to India from Spain. In the 50 years since it had been under the rule of Spain, Puerto Rico had become a "vigorous, self-respected, completely democratic, loyal" and U.S.-friendly territory. In contrast, Spain remained under a dictatorship and had suffered a bloody revolution in the latter Thirties resulting in absence of freedom of press, speech and religion.

Whereas Spain had recently paid a powerful lobby to push a 100-million dollar gift through Congress, Puerto Rican Governor Luis Munoz Marin was able to obtain few gifts from Congress, while being such an advocate of civil liberties in Puerto Rico that he had even given the educational paper-printing contract to the low-bidding San Juan newspaper which was his severest critic. The Governor had, to a great extent, pioneered the new Puerto Rican constitution, a unique document for providing neither statehood nor independence but rather establishing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a "free associated state"—which we hope was not freely associating.

As such, Puerto Rico would remain associated with and part of the United States, free to govern itself on local problems and determine its own taxes but subject to U.S. tariffs and other U.S. laws which Congress would specify as applicable while receiving protection from the U.S. armed forces, which would use the island as a base. This compromise had been worked out by Senators Joseph O'Mahoney of Wyoming and Guy Cordon of Oregon, with the help of other members of Congress, in cooperation with Puerto Rican leaders, on the basis that Puerto Rico did not have sufficient wealth to become a state, as did Hawaii and Alaska, but also could not afford to lose the benefit of economic ties with the U.S. which would occur with complete independence.

If the constitution were to be ratified by the vote of the people, then it would go to the Congress for final approval, at which point Puerto Rico would become a Commonwealth associated with the U.S.

Joseph & Stewart Alsop tell of the President, until about a month earlier, having been inclined not to run again and to support Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois for the Democratic nomination, but having, in the meantime, been pressured by people close to him to run again, despite the fact that most of the Democratic professional politicians privately believed that his renomination would split the party apart. These professionals, however, did not dare say so openly, as they recalled 1948 and how the President had emerged from seeming political oblivion to achieve victory over the heavily favored Governor Dewey. They did not even profess support for Governor Stevenson as their second choice, which was the case, for fear that it would be interpreted as hostility to the President.

Those close to the President, wanting him to run again, agreed that Governor Stevenson was a "fine man" but indicated that his divorce and other considerations ruled him out, that the party needed a fighter, such as the President, and Governor Stevenson had made it plain that he did not wish to run, therefore presenting himself as a weak candidate.

They posit that the President would not be human if all of this encouragement did not appear convincing, but even the professional politicians viewed Governor Stevenson as an extremely strong candidate who would likely be nominated if the President withdrew from the race and backed him. California, for example, was in the Stevenson camp, as State Attorney General Pat Brown, a swing man between the James Roosevelt and Ed Pauley factions of the California organization, had telephoned Governor Stevenson on his own initiative to inform him that California would support him if the President withdrew from the race. The Northwest Democratic organizations also were for the Governor as a second choice to the President, as were those in Indiana, Michigan, and the Governor's home state of Illinois. So, too, were the large East Coast states, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. In the South, Governor Byrnes of South Carolina had tentatively agreed with other Southern leaders not to split the party in two if Governor Stevenson, an old friend of Governor Byrnes, were the nominee.

Moreover, there were no other good alternative nominees available. Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee had alienated the party regulars as well as the President. Senator Robert Kerr of Oklahoma was given no chance without the President's approval, unlikely based on his opposition to civil rights and big oil background. And Chief Justice Fred Vinson had indicated his determination not to run. In addition, the professional politicians believed that Governor Stevenson would be the strongest possible nominee, and, the Alsops posit, given his record, they were undoubtedly correct.

Marquis Childs discusses the battle between Senator Taft and General Eisenhower's supporters for Maine's 16 delegates to the Republican convention. Governor Frederick Payne, a leader in the Eisenhower movement in the state, was running for the Senate seat presently held by Senator Owen Brewster, who was a strong supporter of Senator Taft. The primary set for June 16 would, therefore, present a contest between the two wings of the party, as symbolized by the Senatorial race.

Senator Brewster had undergone great scrutiny because of his activities on behalf of Pan American Airways and receipt of many favors therefrom while sitting in judgment on legislation positively impacting that airline, but had emerged unscathed, whereas Governor Payne was a comparative newcomer to politics, having been a successful businessman before becoming Governor in 1949, proving able and popular in that position. Senator Brewster had indicated his hope that it would be a clean campaign, without smears or personal attacks, which had become fairly emblematic of his prior tactics, causing some observers in the state to fear that if the contest were too gentle, the Senator might be able to win re-election easily, wanting instead an honest contest between two opposing viewpoints.

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.