The Charlotte News
Monday, May 10, 1954
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that at the Geneva peace conference, the Communists had "totally" rejected French terms for an Indochinese armistice this date, countering with an eight-point plan, but agreeing to cooperate in undertaking quick action to remove the wounded from the French fortress at Dien Bien Phu, which had fallen to the Vietminh the prior Friday. The major points of the Communist plan were recognition of the Communist regimes of the Vietminh, Laos and Cambodia, the latter two labeled by the French as "phantom" governments, withdrawal of all foreign troops from Indo-China, plus free elections, conducted along the lines already proposed by the Communists for Germany and Korea, rejected by the West. The plan was expected to be pushed by Soviet Foreign Minister V. M. Molotov and Communist China's representative at the conference, Foreign Minister Chou En-lai, but was certain to be rejected by the West. One provision of the Vietminh proposal would include a declaration of intent on the part of the Vietminh "to study" the form of association with France within the French Union, but a French spokesman labeled that a phony gesture aimed at winning French public opinion. Other points included a promise by the Vietminh to respect existing French cultural and economic interests within the three Associated States of Indo-China, Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, a pledge not to undertake reprisals against persons found guilty of collaboration with the French, an exchange of prisoners of war, and an armistice in Indo-China, including a "readjustment" of occupation zones, a ban on import of troops and arms to Indo-China, and control of the armistice by mixed commissions.
From Saigon, it was reported that the war had returned to a waiting phase, that in the Kingdom of Laos, south of the fallen fortress at Dien Bien Phu, there was uneasy speculation that a new invasion toward the Laotian royal capital of Luang Prabang might be in the making by the Vietminh. But a French high command spokesman in Hanoi said that he doubted the rebels would mount another general offensive in northern Indo-China before the monsoon season hit its peak at the end of June. The Vietminh continued their daily small attacks on French communications and scattered French Union defense posts in the Red River delta, centered on Hanoi.
A Vietminh communiqué broadcast by Communist Chinese radio said that Brig. General Christian de Castries, commander at Dien Bien Phu, had been among those captured after the fall of the fortress, for the first time mentioning him by name, having previously indicated that the "commander" had been among those captured.
From Hanoi, it was reported that French fighters and bombers this date had heavily attacked key roads leading northeastward from the fallen fortress, roads jammed with thousands of Vietminh troops and truck convoys. The bombing centered on the road from Tuan Giao, 27 miles northeast of the fortress, and running eastward to Na San, 117 miles west of Hanoi, the latter having been where, during the winter of 1952-53, the French had for months put up a valiant resistance against encircling and vastly superior Vietminh forces, just as they had at Dien Bien Phu. The French had evacuated Na San on August 11, 1953 and the Vietminh had quickly moved in and occupied it as a staging area for pursuing their conquest of the pro-French Thai-peoples country and the eventual attack on Dien Bien Phu, beginning in mid-March, 57 days before its fall.
Elton C. Fay of the Associated Press tells of the fall of Dien Bien Phu leaving unchanged, according to a Pentagon spokesman, the U.S. program of military assistance to the French Union and Associated States in Indo-China. Sea and air shipment of equipment and supplies and assistance of aircraft technicians to keep the planes flying which had been provided to the French by the U.S. would continue, regardless of whether there would be a truce, as presently being proposed by the French at Geneva, so as to maintain air and naval strength in the general Far East region, prepared to deal with any violation of the truce in Korea or to implement international policy decisions elsewhere, with the ultimate intent to prevent loss of Indo-China to the Communists, resulting, according to accepted Pentagon policy, in the loss of all of Southeast Asia. Although ground strength had been reduced by two divisions in Korea, air and sea strength was being maintained.
In the 13th day of the hearings before the Senate Investigations subcommittee regarding the dispute between the Army and Senator McCarthy, Secretary of the Army Robert Stevens was ordered to submit the names of Army officials responsible for providing an honorable discharge to Major Irving Peress, the Army Reserve dentist who had been promoted from a captain and then honorably discharged after taking the Fifth Amendment with regard to whether he had ever been a member of subversive organizations, when questioned, prior to the controversy, by the subcommittee. Temporary chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Karl Mundt, ordered a closed session during the afternoon to discuss a proposal by Senator Everett Dirksen that public testimony be limited henceforth to Secretary Stevens and Senator McCarthy, and that any further testimony be taken in closed sessions, an effort to truncate the hearings. The proposal of Senator Dirksen was opposed strenuously by Army special counsel Joseph Welch, saying it would "do violence to justice and equity". Senator Stuart Symington of the subcommittee said that it was an effort to sweep the charges "under the rug". Senator Charles Potter of Michigan, a special member of the subcommittee appointed to replace for the time being Senator McCarthy who normally was its chairman, said that there was no effort to sweep the matter under the rug and that there was no point to "hearing the same story told ten times in ten different ways". Senator Mundt said that if the hearings continued as originally scheduled, they would take at least three or four more weeks to complete. After argument regarding the issue of shortening the hearings had been laid aside until the afternoon, Roy Cohn, normally general counsel for the subcommittee, began questioning Secretary Stevens, who had testified in every session thus far of the hearings, albeit interrupted by several other witnesses regarding collateral issues raised by his testimony. Mr. Cohn demanded that the Secretary provide the names of the officials who had been responsible for the discharge of Major Peress. Ray Jenkins, special counsel for the subcommittee, protested that the case of the dentist was irrelevant to the charges before the subcommittee, but eventually it was determined that the Secretary should provide the names. (For whatever reason, the transcript of this date's hearings, as well as those for the ensuing three days of testimony, do not appear to be available online at the usual source, the transcript to pick up again on the following Friday and the following Monday, after which there would be a week-long recess in the public hearings until May 24.)
Former President Truman, in an address to the National Press Club in Washington, urged President Eisenhower this date to use "vigorous action" rather than "pious phrases" against "political assassins" and a Republican "lunatic fringe", which he said were destroying unity and the basis for a bipartisan foreign policy. He said that bipartisanship was necessary but was hard to obtain when one party officially branded the other as a "betrayer in this very field", referring to Republican attacks on Democrats as having been involved in "20 years of treason". He said that no one would suggest that the President was able "to control all irresponsible and unscrupulous persons who dig out of the dunghill of Hitler's writings the phrase with which he attacked the Weimar Republic—'14 years of shame and treason'—and use it as a weapon of political assassination." He believed, however, that there were many things the President could do, as he hired and fired his subordinates and did not need to tolerate "political assassins" within the executive branch. He was also the leader of his party and could direct that the party chairman follow decent rules of political conduct in the campaign, and could at least disavow the "lunatic fringe" in his party or in the Congress outside his control.
The President had not been aware of it, but the Secret Service had been busy during the weekend investigating a reported threat to assassinate him. The head of the Secret Service had said that he was satisfied that the report was bogus. The report had indicated that there would be an attempt to assassinate the President the previous afternoon at Fredericksburg, Va., to which the President had been driven to place a wreath at the grave of Mary Ball Washington, mother of President Washington, in honor of Mother's Day. It was not until the President and the First Lady were being driven back to Washington that the Fredericksburg police chief had informed of the threat he had received and the precautions taken to prevent it from being carried out. He said that a black man, whom he knew to be reliable, had visited police headquarters Saturday and said that he had been approached by two men offering to pay him $500, with plans to kill the President, showing him a rifle with a telescopic sight, with which they planned to shoot the President from a rooftop. The Fredericksburg police chief said that the unnamed man had arranged to meet the pair again on Saturday night, and then reported the matter to the police.
It is worth a reminder, regarding
Civil War history, that the slaughter inflicted on the Confederate
forces at Pickett's charge at Gettysburg
A local piece without a byline indicates that in Charlotte, it was Confederate Memorial Day and all flags were flying at City Hall, with the exception of the Confederate flag. The person in charge of municipal buildings was not certain why it was not being flown, was certain that the City owned such a flag, made inquiries among his assistants and found out that there once had been such a flag in the assortment of state flags but that it had become worn out. The City purchasing agent could not recall whether the Confederate flag was included among all of the state flags when the original purchase was made. The flags of all of the states lined a semicircular sidewalk leading to the entrance of City Hall, and all were flying this morning.
Why on earth should a Confederate flag, of all flags, be flying among the state flags of the United States, when that flag represented only division, disgrace and treason? Might as well fly a swastika-emblazoned flag or one bearing a hammer and sickle. Why, indeed, fly the state flags on Confederate Memorial Day at all? It is not clear, incidentally, why May 10 was Confederate Memorial Day, as the salvos to open the war at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor were fired on April 12, 1861 and the surrender to end the war came at Appomattox, Va., on April 9, 1865, and at Bennett Place near Durham, N.C., on April 26. We suppose it marked the date of Union capture of Confederate President Jefferson Davis on May 10, 1865, after he had supposedly held the last Cabinet meeting of the Confederacy in Charlotte a few days earlier, though there remains some debate as to whether he held a subsequent meeting in Georgia. Perhaps, indeed, after all, the capture of the war-criminal who had led the treasonous revolt was some cause for celebration, which might have been the actual reason for omission of the Confederate flag, appeasing the neo-Confederates opposing an end to segregation, not to mention the D.A.R., by flying state flags on this date, while actually intending a more progressive statement, representative of the better angels of their natures.
Lucien Agniel of The News indicates that a good liberal arts education, according to Dr. Edwin Walker, new president of Queens College, ought be the primary objective of colleges, along with the growth of the entire student. He said that he was impressed with the worthwhile opportunity for a liberal arts woman's college and the resources for its continued development which Charlotte offered. When asked about the conflict in education between progressive and fundamentalist forces, he said that initially one had to understand factors at work for the prior 30 or 40 years, making college students at present not as well-prepared as in the past, that there were more people completing high school than ever before, leading to the diminished preparation of high school graduates for entry to college, that they were relatively less adequate in mathematics, limiting those who would enter the sciences. He said that it would do no good to blame the high schools, that there was no easy solution and that he did not think there should be much difference in preparation of a high school student for college or for a trade, that a boy who wanted to become a mechanic needed to learn mathematics and English in high school, not mechanics.
In West Hartford, Conn., a police sergeant on desk duty received a telephone call from a woman indicating that a utility pole in front of her house was too close to her driveway, wanted it moved, explaining that she and her daughter had just learned to drive and that she was certain she would hit the pole eventually.
On the editorial page, "Questions for Assembly Candidates" poses 19 questions for Mecklenburg candidates for the General Assembly, who were making the rounds of "barbecues and fish fries, handing out cards, smiles, jokes and firm handshakes." It wishes to pin them down on the 19 issues, starting with the state minimum wage law, the re-institution of the auto safety inspection law, compulsory auto liability insurance, repeal of the secrecy law passed by the previous General Assembly, separation of the Prisons Division from the Highway Department, and so on down the list of statewide and local issues, concluding with what action, in the event the Supreme Court ruled against public school segregation—as it would a week hence—, the candidates would recommend the state undertake in response.
It concludes that giving the answers
to the 19 questions would keep the candidates "from eating more
than their share of barbecue." But then they can't strut
"Foreign Policy Needs Bipartisanship" indicates that Senate Minority Leader Lyndon Johnson had gone out of his way to be cooperative with the Eisenhower Administration on domestic and foreign policy, so much so that he had been criticized by other Democrats, but had changed his tune at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Washington the previous week, attacking Administration foreign policy regarding the crisis in Indo-China and the Geneva peace conference—as covered extensively by Doris Fleeson this date. The piece quotes from Senator Johnson's remarks and finds that it was strong language, widely interpreted as signaling a sharp break with the Democratic tradition of bipartisan foreign policy vis-à-vis the Eisenhower Administration.
It suggests that in light of the many cruel things said by Republicans about the Roosevelt and Truman foreign policies in the Far East, including the 1952 Republican foreign policy plank written primarily by Secretary of State Dulles, Democratic leaders might have some justification for their recent attacks on the Administration's approach to Indo-China. But even so, it hopes that the interpretation of the speech by Senator Johnson was wrong, as bipartisanship in foreign policy had never been more urgently needed than at present. Moreover, the Democrats could not claim the right to gain control of both Congressional houses in the midterm elections if they followed the example set by one element of the Republican Party between 1950 and 1952, exploiting foreign policy problems for political gain. It posits that foreign policy worked both ways and that the President could forestall a Democratic break if he and Secretary Dulles would call on the advice of such persons as former Secretary of State Acheson and former Ambassador George Kennan, the latter having developed the Truman policy of containment vis-à-vis Communism while chief planner in the State Department. That would be consistent with the advice and counsel sought by President Truman of Mr. Dulles.
"An Opportunity for Carolina Farmers" suggests that North Carolinians and South Carolinians thinking of leaving the farm for greater opportunity in the cities might first consider an opportunity in the sheep business. In New England, woolen mills were in trouble, encountering some of the same problems besetting the cotton mills before the majority of them had decided to move south, as the old plants, with their several floors, provided less efficient operation than the one-story plants which were prevalent now in North and South Carolina, where land was available for them. New England was not a wool-producing region, having but 20 percent of the entire U.S. sheep population within its bounds. About two weeks earlier, ten New England woolen mills had been struck by the Textile Workers Union of America in protest against a wage cut.
Recently, Congress had passed a bill which made sheep-raising more attractive financially, designed to protect domestic producers, raise domestic wool production by about 300 million pounds, and allow U.S. producers to obtain the difference between the market price of wool and the high support price.
In South Carolina, a large wool-producer had decided to build a plant, which could prove a harbinger of an industrial shift as remarkable as that which had occurred in the cotton industry. Thus, sheep-raising should become quite profitable anywhere in the country, and particularly in the South, where the demand would be increasing sharply. The company establishing the wool plant in South Carolina was also considering entering the sheep business in that state. Presently, however, the Carolinas raised practically no sheep, and the sheep population was declining in both states, much lower than in Virginia, Kentucky or Tennessee. North Carolina ranked 46th among the states in per farm income from livestock, and South Carolina ranked 47th. Both states, however, had large rural populations, with North Carolina being the largest in the country.
It suggests that if only a fourth or a fifth of the farmers in the two states started sheep-raising, they would be in a profitable cash business, decreasing their dependence on tobacco and cotton, while providing another incentive for industry to locate to the Carolinas, bringing more opportunities for jobs. It suggests, therefore, promotion of sheep-raising through 4-H clubs, the FFA, the extension service and in every other way possible.
But, we always thought sheep-raising was relegated to colder climes for the woolly ones, such as out in Idaho with the potatoes for fodder, the poor little lambs probably not going to be that comfortable in their sweaters sweltering in the summer humidity of the Carolinas. They might say "bah" to your suggestion. Sounds like a "Kukla, Fran and Ollie" suggestion, or at least one dreamed up by Lambchop, maybe a different program.
Drew Pearson suggests that former President Truman, "one time ranking member of the Pearson Non-Admiration Society", might be surprised to read the present column about him on the week of his 70th birthday, but hopes that he would not deny it as he had some of the stories appearing in the column previously. The chairman of the Chrysler Corporation, K. T. Keller, had told a group at the Bohemian Grove in California that he had telephoned the former President and told him that he wished him to have a Chrysler car, as "Lincolns seemed to have the inside track at the White House while you were there, and now General Motors is in favor."
The former President had responded that he had been thinking about purchasing a Chrysler and wanted to know what Mr. Keller suggested as a model, to which the latter replied that it was the Imperial, prompting the former President to say that it sounded "a little too swanky" for him and wanted another recommendation, Mr. Keller indicating that the New Yorker was next in line, making sure that the former President understood that Chrysler wanted him to have the car with their compliments. Mr. Truman however demurred on the basis that he was now a private citizen and did not believe he should obtain any privileges which would not come to any other private citizen. Mr. Keller responded that the company would receive a lot of publicity from the car and wanted to give it to him, to which Mr. Truman replied that he did not care whether they got a million dollars worth of publicity, the President should not be exploited even after he had left office and that if he were going to have a Chrysler, he would pay for it. And he did. He was now driving that Chrysler. Mr. Keller, as he told the story at the Bohemian Grove, asked rhetorically whether anyone else would have turned down a similar offer.
By the way, Mr. Truman, if he so
desires, can take Pike's Peak in that thing in no time flat—or
perhaps that was a Desoto
Senator McCarthy and his aides had been "chortling with glee" regarding a piece of dynamite they held in reserve to spring on Army general counsel John G. Adams at the point when he would begin testifying in the Army-McCarthy dispute. Initially, it appeared that the Senator had something, but on second glance, it appeared to have evaporated in mixed-up names. Mr. Pearson relates the facts, pertaining to a scandal involving blood plasma and the purchase of substitute blood plasma from a Swedish company by the Army. Since blood plasma was essential in the event of an atomic attack and was limited in supply, the Army planned to stockpile a huge quantity of a new substitute form, Dextran blood plasma expander, sufficient to supply every person in the country, to be stored in case of atomic war. The Pharmacia Co. of Sweden had filed patent claims on Dextran and demanded a royalty from the U.S. for the plasma substitute, meaning the payment of a lot of money. At that point, Mr. Adams had stepped into the matter to determine whether to accept the Justice Department's conclusion that Pharmacia's patents were invalid, the matter having been appealed to the courts, involving the Army in a legal battle, or to make a compromise with the company. He had hired New York lawyer Frank Bowers as special legal adviser to conduct a study of the matter, Mr. Bowers recommending a compromise under which the Army would pay Pharmacia a dime per pound royalty for Dextran up to 100,000 pounds per year, with a nickel per pound royalty after that point, adding up to an estimated 17 million dollars over the life of the patent. The Justice Department, since it had already ruled the patent invalid, objected to that arrangement. But Mr. Adams supported the compromise and in an unpublished letter of April 5 to Secretary of the Army Stevens, had written his recommendation that a settlement be reached, that if the Secretary agreed, he would forward the appropriate letter to the Justice Department outlining the views and recommendation.
When the story had leaked, Senator McCarthy had jumped on it, and his aides then discovered that the New York law firm for Pharmacia included Mr. Bowers as reportedly a member, suggesting a conflict of interest. But the column, in checking out the impending exposé of Senator McCarthy, had found that the lawyer in question was named Frank Barrows, not Frank Bowers, the latter informing the column that he had nothing to do with that law firm and that the proposed compromise would be cheaper in the long-run than a court battle and that since the Swedish company had helped to develop the Dextran substitute, a moral obligation was owed to it to pay the royalty. He also said that the reason the Army had chosen him as special counsel in the matter was not clear to him but was probably because he had been a patent expert. Thus, Mr. Pearson concludes that the McCarthy exposé regarding Mr. Adams, whom the Senator detested, had died aborning.
Joseph & Stewart Alsop suggest that the weeks of crisis regarding a decision on policy toward Indo-China had exposed the peculiar Congressional relations with the Eisenhower Administration, that a minor but typical incident had arisen from the French need for more U.S. Air Force mechanics to service the U.S.-provided planes, in response to which the Administration had assigned a little over 200 mechanics of the Far East Air Force to that duty, producing great consternation in Congress. About two weeks earlier, the French reported that the 200 mechanics were not enough to keep the French bombers and transports flying, that they needed about twice that many, the number the French had originally requested. Before dealing with the situation, Administration representatives conferred with bipartisan groups of both House and Senate leaders. According to reports, Senators opposed sending further uniformed Americans to Indo-China, but in the House, Minority Leader Sam Rayburn appeared to voice the general view that there was no difference in principle between sending 200 Americans and 400 Americans as mechanics, and that the Administration should do whatever appeared advisable. Nevertheless, that advice was rejected, but illustrated the extreme deference with which the Administration was regarding Congressional opinion.
It also showed the revival of seeking bipartisan opinion, which had not been the norm for the Eisenhower White House regarding foreign policy until the Indo-China crisis arose and it became clear in recent weeks that luck would not produce a French victory. The Republican Senate leaders included Senators William Knowland, Homer Ferguson, Alexander Wiley and Leverett Saltonstall, and the Democratic leaders included Senators Lyndon Johnson, Richard Russell and Walter George. From the discussions had emerged two basic rules which had governed the Administration's handling of the crisis, that the President would not act without Congressional authorization and that the country would not attempt armed intervention except in the context of "united action" with allies. The latter rule had been particularly significant, as neither the British nor any other Western ally had large troop contingents available to be sent to Indo-China, as was well known. Thus any "united action", on which the Congressional leaders had insisted, would have to consist of no more than token forces from the allied nations.
The Alsops frame an analogy to a pilot with three engines dead on his plane, facing the Rocky Mountains straight ahead, having the option of telling the passengers they could parachute when none of them were trained in parachuting, instead opting to take his chances on not colliding with the mountain, or telling the passengers the straight story and giving them the choice of either parachuting or hitting the mountain, finding it similar to the way the Government was behaving over the Indo-China crisis vis-à-vis the Congress and the country, representing the passengers in the analogy. Nobody wanted to intervene, but the alternative was to lose Indo-China to the Communists, and per the Alsops' piece of Saturday, all of Southeast Asia in the bargain, a position held by the Administration. They suggest therefore that it was time to level with the country to avoid hitting the mountain.
We suppose that since the concept was based on the "domino theory", so-called sometime later, one could dub it "Sugar Mountain", rather than the Rockies, even if the Air Force Academy and the headquarters for NORAD would be located in the Rockies a short time later.
Doris Fleeson indicates that for the first time, a senior Democrat, Senate Minority Leader Lyndon Johnson—within eight months to become Majority Leader—, had challenged the President on foreign policy by assailing the Administration's recent action regarding Indo-China as "a dismal series of reversals and confusions", also stating that American foreign policy had never in all its history "suffered such a stunning defeat" as at Geneva, making those statements the previous week at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Washington, at which influential Democrats from all over the country had gathered. It was only by self-choice that the Democrats were in the minority in the Senate, to avoid responsibility for the Eisenhower policies through the midterm elections, as the Democrats were actually in the majority but for independent Senator Wayne Morse having pledged to vote with the Republicans in any potential tie vote, to enable Vice-President Nixon to break such ties, thus providing to the Republicans the organizational "majority".
Political observers viewed the address by Senator Johnson as a planned strategy, that the Senator was a candidate for the presidency and had chosen the vacuum of bipartisan leadership on foreign policy as the vehicle for his "legitimate ambitions". His criticism of the Administration had been free of invoking personalities, absent any wisecracks about "Nixon's war"—which would have been in response to the Republicans having called Korea "Truman's war"—Ms. Fleeson surely somehow possessed of the gift of augury 14 years ahead of time in making that statement.
Senator Johnson had indicated that the country had been caught bluffing at Geneva and stood "in clear danger of being left naked and alone in a hostile world", referring to Secretary of State Dulles's efforts to obtain "united action" and failing at same. Many Democrats in the House and Senate shared the feeling, as they did Senator Johnson's contention that "the American people have only a secondary interest in doctored photographs and kitchen police", referring to the Army-McCarthy hearings and the controversy surrounding the Army's special treatment of Private G. David Schine at the behest of Roy Cohn and Senator McCarthy. Senator Johnson indicated that every other issue was secondary to the question "whether free, representative government can survive."
Parenthetically, we make the special effort to define what the Senator meant by "doctored photographs and kitchen police", so that no young person, not terribly familiar with the history to which reference is actually made, might mistake that quote for subliminal reference in advance to the assassinations of President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza in Dallas in 1963 and of Senator Robert Kennedy in Los Angeles in 1968 in the Ambassador Hotel kitchen pantry, a hotel still owned at the time by Mr. Schine's father. It represents one of those bitter ironies of history, in more ways than one—which, if one views it as by design, would have to be a design developed by someone quite above the pay-grade of Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan. Who ultimately benefited from both assassinations? Certainly, it was not President Johnson, insofar as the assassination of Senator Kennedy. The answer is rather obvious. But we digress…
Ms. Fleeson goes on to suggest that the White House must have regarded the speech by Senator Johnson in combination with the fact that every Eisenhower victory in the foreign policy field had been made possible by Democratic votes, with Democratic support divided on many domestic issues, such as civil rights, whereas Republican support was divided on international issues. The question raised by the Senator's intrusion into foreign policy was whether the President could and would make it possible for the Senator to be a statesman. To the present, the President had been silently accepting Democratic support on many issues, especially on foreign policy, while permitting his political brain trust, Attorney General Herbert Brownell and RNC chairman Leonard Hall, to use Senator McCarthy and the theme of "20 years of treason" by Democrats, embracing the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations and the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, save for the 80th Congress of 1947-48. She indicates that developing another bipartisan foreign policy leader, as the late Senator Arthur Vandenberg had been vis-à-vis the Democrats, in the party opposing the majority, while the same Senator delivered an indictment of the Administration foreign policy, would be a "good trick" if the President could do it.
She adds that Senator Johnson had made his statements in the wake of the passage of the primary filing date to oppose him for the Democratic nomination for re-election to the Senate, Texas Governor Allan Shivers, who had supported General Eisenhower in 1952, having chosen to run again for governor rather than enter the Senatorial race. Thus, the Senator now had time to devote to Washington issues rather than keeping "a weather eye cocked on Texas", as he had for the previous 18 months of his Senate minority leadership. She indicates that it was improbable that he would ever wish to go so far as he had on foreign policy, to the position of Northern Democrats regarding some domestic issues, including labor and civil rights, but that it was also true that foreign policy would again be the major issue in 1956, even if a hot war were avoided in the meantime.
Again, she waxes somewhat prophetic, if in a backwards manner—as, obviously, as Majority Leader in 1957 and 1960, Senator Johnson would lead the Democrats in favor of support of both of the civil rights bills proposed by the Administration, and, of course, as President, would lead the fight, admirably and with great leadership, in favor of the Civil Rights bill of 1964, which made it unlawful to discriminate in private business settings operating in interstate commerce on the basis of race, national origin, sex, religion, and color, as well as the Voting Rights bill of 1965, both bills having been put forward by President Kennedy in 1963, but getting nowhere in Congress at the time of his assassination, because of the Southern resistance thereto, which President Johnson was able to overcome by virtue of his particular powers of persuasion evident during his time as Majority Leader and because of the great sympathy factor, at least among some of the more sensitive Southerners, which had developed after the brutal assassination of the President.
A letter writer indicates that he had read with great interest the coverage by the newspaper of current discussions among physicians in the county's medical society and the state society regarding admission of black physicians to membership and participation in those organizations, believed that the newspaper had provided a fair picture of the issues, and hopes that the physicians of Mecklenburg would remove barriers of opportunity to black physicians, despite the backward step taken by the state society to exclude them from membership because of complications arising, in that event, regarding accommodations at conventions.
A letter from Harry Golden, editor of the Carolina Israelite, addresses the same issue, indicating that the North Carolina Medical Society, in denying membership to qualified physicians, had done a disturbing thing, also expressing the hope that the Mecklenburg doctors would open the county society to black doctors, adding to the well-being of the community.
A letter writer regards the same issue, commends the newspaper for its editorial on the matter and also expresses the hope that the local medical society would admit black physicians.
A letter from the president of the Consolidated Club Council indicates that at a recent meeting of the organization, a resolution had been adopted, which he quotes, supporting the two-cent tax levy for the support of Carver and Charlotte Colleges. The Club favored it on the basis of the excellent work being done at Carver College and the opportunity given for educational advantages locally by the two community colleges.
Links-Date — Links-Subj.