The Charlotte News
Friday, June 18, 1954
FOUR EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that at the U.N. in New York, Russia vetoed Thailand's proposal for an Indo-China peace patrol to have the task of going to Thailand to check on any Communist incursion there from Indo-China, the 59th veto by Russia as one of five permanent members of the Security Council since 1945, each possessed with the unilateral veto power by the original Charter. The other four permanent members, the U.S., Britain, France, and Nationalist China, along with five other rotating Council members, had supported the resolution, while Lebanon had abstained. The veto by Russia opened the door for a special move by Thailand within the 60-nation General Assembly to consider the matter. The Soviet representative charged that the resolution was "a diversion and camouflage by the United States to widen the conflict in Indo-China". Thailand also wanted the observation commission to operate in Laos and Cambodia as well, but agreed to ask for additional authority for the commission later if it appeared necessary.
In Paris, Pierre Mendes-France had been approved the previous day by the National Assembly as the new Premier, and was working urgently to form a Cabinet this date. He might reserve to himself the position of foreign minister, replacing Georges Bidault, with French sources indicating that he would go to Geneva the following Monday to fill the diplomatic gap left by the collapse of the previous Government of Premier Joseph Laniel, after a no-confidence vote by the Assembly the previous Saturday, resulting in the Premier's resignation. Premier Mendes-France had promised the Assembly the previous day that he would achieve a peace settlement in Indo-China by July 20 or resign, and would also, by that same date, propose a sweeping new economic plan for the country, and enable the Assembly to move immediately toward a stand on the European Defense Community treaty, providing for a unified European army between France, West Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries.
From Tegucigalpa, Honduras, it was reported that armed Guatemalan exiles were massing along the Honduran frontier with Guatemala amid indications this date that a revolt against President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman's Communist-influenced regime might take place at any hour. Dispatches from heavily censored Guatemala indicated that 100,000 laborers were expected to parade through the streets of Guatemala City. Armed men in Honduras, apparently recruits for the exile resistance movement, were continuing to leave Tegucigalpa, presumably headed for the border region with Guatemala.
Following the end of the 36 days of hearings the previous day before the Senate Investigations subcommittee, regarding the dispute between the Army and Senator McCarthy, the three Democrats on the subcommittee, Senators John McClellan, Stuart Symington and Henry Jackson, called for the Administration to consider quickly whether there should be criminal prosecutions for perjury and for misuse of the FBI's secret document conveyed by an unnamed Army intelligence officer to Senator McCarthy. Senator McClellan, speaking to newsmen, said that there should also be a quick decision as to whether there was need for an "immediate house-cleaning" of the staff of the Investigations subcommittee, normally chaired by Senator McCarthy. He also said that the subcommittee should decide quickly what to do about two members of the staff who, according to the Defense Department in a letter to the subcommittee, had not received security clearance by the Department to handle secret documents, and should determine a course of action regarding members of the staff who, according to the testimony during the hearings, had made threats in an attempt to intimidate members of the subcommittee who had conducted the hearings. The Senator cited as an example of such intimidation a dispute which had arisen the previous Friday afternoon, following the afternoon session of the hearings, between usual chief counsel for the subcommittee Roy Cohn and the minority counsel for the subcommittee, Robert F. Kennedy, which the latter contended had involved a threat by Mr. Cohn to "get" Senator Jackson by using supposed information regarding Senator Jackson's alleged sympathy with Communism. Senators Symington and Jackson concurred with Senator McClellan's comments. Mr. Cohn had denied saying that he would "get" Senator Jackson, but rather claimed that he had stated to Mr. Kennedy that he would "get to" a question, in the following hearing, raised by Senator Jackson in questioning of Senator McCarthy regarding sought favors from the Army for Private G. David Schine. Senator Mundt had told the press on Saturday that he had been unaware the previous afternoon of the exchange between Mr. Cohn and Mr. Kennedy, that the two had been engaged in a "feud" for quite some time and that he did not know what its origins were, did not care, and assured that it would have no place in the hearings. There was no indication in the reports that there was any follow-up effort by Mr. Cohn on Monday or during the remaining three days of the hearings thereafter regarding Senator Jackson's questioning of Senator McCarthy.
The contents of the secret document raised by Senator McClellan, an 11-page memo which Senator McCarthy contended contained the names of subversives operating at the secret radar research facility at Fort Monmouth in New Jersey, supposedly originally formed by executed atomic spy Julius Rosenberg, had never been revealed by the subcommittee after Attorney General Herbert Brownell made a finding that it was a matter of national security.
Senator Mundt this date told reporters that an executive session of the subcommittee regarded only the subject of getting out a report on the hearings, but gave no indication as to when such a report might be expected, only that he hoped that it would be finished before the adjournment of Congress in August. He also said that the seven members of the subcommittee for the special investigation could only make recommendations to the regular subcommittee, which included Senator McCarthy in place of the temporary member for the hearings, Senator Henry Dworshak of Idaho, and possessed no power to hire or fire regular subcommittee staff employees. He said that another executive session of the group would occur on Monday.
A story by reporter John Chadwick of the Associated Press provides some recap of the highlights of the hearings, in case you missed them. He generally indicates that the probe of the dispute between the Army and Senator McCarthy had begun with "a tangle of conflicting charges" and "wound up with a mass of conflicting testimony".
Attorney General Herbert Brownell, speaking before editors and publishers of about 500 weekly newspapers at the 69th annual convention of the National Editorial Association in Baltimore, said the previous night that Senator McCarthy's invitation to Government employees to come to him with any information which they had regarding potential espionage within the executive branch, even if the information was categorized as secret, threatened the American concept of the separation of powers and "would substitute rule by an individual for government by law". He said that nothing pleased the Communists more than to create division among the people on matters of national security, to impair constitutional government and encourage disobedience to the law. He said that he had spoken out against those in high places who were blind to the danger of Communist infiltration to the government and that it was equally important to speak out against those, regardless of motive, who broke down the system of government by law in an effort to investigate Communism. He did not mention Senator McCarthy by name, but quoted a statement by the Senator made during the hearings, regarding the duty of Federal employees "to give [the subcommittee] any information which they have". The Attorney General stated that destruction of the constitutional system of separation of powers would, as the Founders had warned, "result in tyranny".
From Saigon, it was reported that U.S. Air Force personnel stationed at a French air base in Tourane were missing and U.S. officials feared that they might have fallen into the hands of the Vietminh. The U.S. Embassy reported that a Vietnamese peasant had reported seeing five Americans among a group of 20 Senegalese war prisoners ten miles south of Tourane. The five men had left the airbase on Monday by vehicle, headed to a beach three miles away, without passes or authorization to depart the base, their absence having been discovered when they failed to report for roll call on Tuesday morning. Vietnamese said that they had seen the group in swimming trunks at the beach, target-shooting with carbines, but no weapons were reported missing from the base. About 350 U.S. technicians were stationed at the base to repair B-26 bombers which the U.S. had provided to the French for use in the Indo-China war.
In Chicago, a fire broke out in an animal food plant owned by Armour & Co. in an area of the city's vast stockyards, but had been brought under control for the most part by mid-morning, leaving damage estimated at about half a million dollars worth, the cause of the fire having not yet been determined. No injuries had resulted.
In Burbank, the trial appeared in its last day in the divorce suit between actress Susan Hayward and her estranged husband, actor Jess Barker, the latter seeking half of her property acquired during marriage, including a million dollar film contract and cash assets of $293,000, the contest being over a prenuptial agreement which provided that each spouse would continue to hold their earnings as separate property during their marriage. An accountant had testified the previous day that Mr. Barker had earned $318 in 1951 while Ms. Hayward had grossed more than $163,000, and that in 1952, Mr. Barker had earned $346, while Ms. Hayward had earned more than $210,000, with Mr. Barker having testified that he had earned $1,500 in the previous 18 months and that his bank account currently totaled $5,000. Ms. Hayward had offered him in settlement $100,000, payable in the form of alimony during a 10-year period, at $10,000 per year, an offer which he had rejected, though his attorney had indicated that it would be acceptable in one lump sum as community property. It had previously been reported that he wanted to reconcile. She claimed that his only contribution to the tasks around the house were to water the trees, buy newspapers, help her occasionally with her movie lines and to buy groceries, often to her dissatisfaction for his penny-pinching on food, that when she encouraged him to look for work, he only replied that he was an actor.
In New York, five members of a
California religious sect had touched off an uproar in Times Square
the previous day when they began handing out one dollar bills,
accompanied by a Biblical reminder that "the love of money is
the root of all evil", finding out that New Yorkers still loved
money and would even fight to obtain it. Master Krishna Venta
In Washington, a tall man carrying a Bible came to the Capitol this date to protest the end of the Army-McCarthy hearings, and was taken to a hospital for mental observation. Police said that they knew something was wrong with the man's mental state when he said that he wanted the hearings to continue.
On the editorial page, "From a Sideshow, a Lesson or Two" indicates that as the Army-McCarthy hearings had "droned" to a "dismal conclusion" the previous day after 36 days of testimony, the American people had been left with a great deal to ponder, without hope of coming to definite conclusions. It had appeared at the outset that the charges and counter-charges were so directly contradictory that a clear-cut case of perjury would inevitably result on one side or the other, but toward the end of the hearings, people were left to wonder whether any Federal grand jury could wade through the mass of conflicting testimony and come out with an indictment which would withstand scrutiny by a judge and trial jury. It suggests that the confusion probably had been calculated, that the hearings had been most "unjudicial" and that the "point of order" device had been atrociously abused, with witnesses, counsel and subcommittee members having been provided great leeway, of which they had taken great advantage in making political speeches. It finds that evidence had been admitted which probably should have been promptly ruled out of order by subcommittee temporary chairman during the investigation, Senator Karl Mundt.
Thus, hearings which could have shed light on the use of legislative power to encroach on the province of the executive branch had instead turned into a "sideshow" which "titillated millions of Americans who had nothing better to do than watch television and bored those who were too busy with profitable activities to do more than read the repetitious headlines day after day." It finds, nevertheless, that the hearings had taught some useful lessons by portraying in full dimensions the "swaggering arrogance and insulting superciliousness" of Senator McCarthy, suggesting that if the people retained any respect for modesty, fair mindedness and integrity in their public officials, the Senator's reign was nearing an end. It had also portrayed the ineptitude of the businessman-turned-bureaucrat forced to practice the unaccustomed art of politics before those who were masters of that art, referring to Secretary of the Army Robert Stevens, who emerged from the hearings as a symbol of sincerity and earnestness but also as the archetype of political naïveté. The hearings had also given the American people a fuller understanding of the deficiencies of the Congressional investigative process when conducted "by men who themselves are not of large calibre", a system designed to ferret out facts on which legislation could be based, but having become supercharged with politics to the point that it was attempting to do more than simply determine the need for legislation.
It finds, in addition, that the picture of a strong, dynamic, justice-based America had been distorted, both at home and abroad, by the televised spectacle, and that it would remain distorted until the Senate faced its too long ignored responsibilities, the censure and control of Senator McCarthy and a full-scale revision of the investigative process to prevent its abuse for personal political gain.
"Investment Opportunity for Businessmen" indicates that businessmen preferred to invest in operations which would decrease Federal controls and strengthen free enterprise and which would provide a significant return on investment while aiding their own businesses.
It suggests that one such expenditure meeting all of those criteria was an investment in education, specifically in private colleges, and the previous day, some of the colleges in South Carolina had initiated a campaign to make businessmen aware of that opportunity. Fourteen years earlier, private colleges had received 26 percent of their income from endowments, whereas presently, it had been reduced to 14 percent, forcing the private colleges to reduce per pupil expenditures by 20 percent versus that in 1940, while publicly supported colleges and universities were spending more per pupil in the same time period. Corporations at present were contributing about one percent of their earnings, 260 million dollars, to education, but the private institutions were still short about 250 million, meaning that if corporations provided about two percent of their income to education and earmarked the additional half for private colleges, the financial problems of the 1,200 institutions would be solved. Given that five percent of net income before taxes was allowable as charitable contributions, corporations could give a way that five percent, a substantial portion of which otherwise would be paid in taxes.
"Medicine Which Only You Can Provide" tells of the level of blood donations having dramatically decreased since the end of the Korean War the previous July, with the assumption being that there was no longer such intense need for supply, and that Charlotte was included in the area where there was a shortage of the normal civilian supply. Thus far during the year, the local Red Cross chapter was 750 pints short of its quota for the fiscal year ending at the end of the month. Its needs had not been so critical that the shortage had caused a deficiency in medical care, but it had been necessary on several occasions to postpone surgeries which were not urgent because of the shortage.
The most liberal blood donors were men who were presently or had been in the armed services, having seen lives of men saved on the battlefield and realizing how precious blood was, whereas civilians were often reluctant to become donors, even those whose close relatives had benefited from blood transfusions. It urges that there was no reason for reluctance, that giving of blood was not an unpleasant experience, only took 30 minutes, and the Red Cross would pick up the donors and return them home, while furnishing free baby-sitting services in the process.
A piece from the Twin City Sentinel of Winston-Salem, titled "Is There No Prince Charming?" indicates that Cinderella had joined Snow White and Little Red Riding Hood in earning disfavor with British critics, because Cinderella obtained her Prince Charming, inducing young girls, therefore, to grow up with similar expectations.
It finds that many of the fairy tales were bloody and frightening, such as the wicked stepmother in "Snow White" who transformed herself into a "crone of the most terrifying shape", enough, it finds, to provide even an adult a nightmare. (If a cartoon can give you a nightmare, you may have some psychological or substance abuse issues which you might need to discuss with a professional. The simple solution would be to stop going to see cartoons. As we once imparted, we once had an afternoon napmare in which we believed Pluto, the dog in "Goofy", was out in our front yard, giving us a major scare of the moment within the dreamscape, which obviously was merely the result of some exacerbated momentary and forgotten fear of some neighborhood dog, perhaps with the contributing factor that the front of the house, from which we saw the huge, man-sized dog on the lawn, had a picture window, resemblant enough to a movie screen to frame the sequence; but that was at a time when we were about three years old. Moreover, upon awakening, we knew it had been merely a dream and dismissed it as such, finding it rather funny, if memorable. If, as an adult, you cringe in a theater watching a cartoon, it would be prudent to see a counselor.)
It goes on to review "Cinderella" and the sibling rivalry portrayed therein for the hunt of the glass slipper, "Little Red" and its portrayal of the grandmother being devoured by the wolf, and in "Jack and the Beanstalk", the discussion of the blood of an Englishman and the imminent danger that Jack would be roasted alive, concluding that the folk imagination was fertile and often gory.
It indicates, however, that the reasons provided by the British for disapproval of the three fairy tales in question appeared flimsy, as a national teachers' conference had expressed the fear that children would be taught deceit by "Little Red", that the wolf's masquerade in the grandmother's raiment might cause the children to dissemble likewise. It also questions whether it was necessarily harmful for a girl to grow up believing that she would meet her Prince Charming, that perhaps in the expectation, she might do so. If it proved disillusioning, it finds that it was probably better to expect a prince than a dolt, that a girl might as well be ambitious, for, otherwise, there was no telling whom she might marry.
In our estimate the cartoons which potentially cause the most damage to young children are not those depicting gore or moral lessons, but rather those which don't show any gore resulting from a hard blow to the head or a shotgun blast, conveying to the child without much training at home that violence has no physical consequence to the being against which the violence is performed.
Drew Pearson indicates that it had been nearly two years since Governor Dewey had a long session with General Eisenhower during the 1952 campaign regarding the importance of an early showdown with Senator McCarthy, having urged the candidate to stage that showdown in Milwaukee by criticizing the Senator in his own bailiwick. Instead, General Eisenhower had listened to other advisers and eliminated from his speech any criticism of the Senator, even eliminating from the speech praise for the General's old friend, General Marshall, after conferring personally with Senator McCarthy, despite the latter having called General Marshall a traitor for his advice to President Truman that aid to the Nationalist Chinese in their civil war with the Communist Chinese was a waste of money and weapons, that it would only wind up being taken by graft or surrender to the Communists, and that the Communists were actually more efficient in their administration than were the Nationalists, beset by graft and corruption, that advice based on General Marshall having been the President's special envoy to China during 1946.
Some 20 months after the election in 1952, some of the members of Congress who generally supported Governor Dewey's policies were saying that the President had decided again to compromise with Senator McCarthy by not allowing a vote on the resolution of censure of the Senator proposed by Senator Ralph Flanders of Vermont, regarding the failure of Senator McCarthy to respond to the Senate subcommittee which had criticized his extraordinary finances in 1952 but had been unable to reach firm conclusions because the Senator had refused to appear before the subcommittee. Mr. Pearson indicates that if the resolution came up for a vote, a majority of the Democrats and enough Republicans would vote to approve it, thus giving the President a victory over Senator McCarthy, who had caused him more trouble than any other member of Congress, regardless of party affiliation. The resolution could not come up for a vote without Senate Majority Leader William Knowland approving it, and he, along with the White House, had thus far rejected it. The reluctance to give the resolution support resulted from the President's desire to obtain passage of his legislative program, and it was believed important to preserve therefore the support of Senator McCarthy and his supporters.
On May 27, the President had issued an emphatic Justice Department statement against the position of the Senator, inviting employees of the executive branch to provide him inside information regarding any hint of espionage, leading to the President's executive order against providing such information or any information which might compromise national security to any Congressional committee or member of Congress.
Some of the Dewey supporters in Congress argued that the President needed the ability to administer the laws which were currently on the books, not so much a program of new legislation, and that he could not do so as long as Senator McCarthy's power constantly loomed.
The President was so determined to push his legislative program through Congress that he had secretly ordered Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson to terminate the most popular way for Congressmen to sneak out of town, via airplane junkets, especially popular during the hot summer months, when members would look for interesting places to "investigate" at public expense. The President was seeking to keep members present through the date of adjournment. Mr. Pearson notes, however, that the House Select Committee on Communist Aggression, chaired by Representative Charles Kersten of Wisconsin, a friend of Senator McCarthy, was continuing to demand free transportation to investigate "Communist aggression" in Europe, particularly along the Mediterranean coast, and the chairman had insisted on taking his wife and daughter with him, prompting Mr. Pearson to comment that it was unclear how his family would aid him in his anti-Communist cause.
Marquis Childs, in Chicago, discusses Adlai Stevenson's rise from relative obscurity outside Illinois to the drafted presidential nominee of the Democrats in 1952 and the generally acknowledged choice for the nomination in 1956. But, unlike his role leading up to 1952, as Governor of Illinois, he was now without any office and was consigned to a role of being "citizen-without-portfolio" and had to last another two years in that position, without a ready-made forum from which to speak.
Mr. Childs indicates that upon revisiting Mr. Stevenson, he found that he had not changed appreciably from the modest, understated individual who had, in the months leading up to the 1952 convention, repeatedly eschewed efforts to get him to enter the race, including efforts by President Truman at the time, consistently indicating that other particular candidates would make a much better president. The changes in him since that time were superficial rather than involving any alteration of his character. He was thinner, the result of a recent kidney-stone operation, from which he was still recovering. He had a quality rare in politicians, that of imagination. He spoke of President Eisenhower with quiet compassion, as being confronted with the revolutionary upheaval in Asia and a divided Congress, nearly equally Republican and Democratic.
Mr. Stevenson remained particularly proud of one aspect of his 1952 fall campaign, that he had predicted the fatal division within the Republican Party, which he had said would cause Congress ultimately to reject the President's more progressive policies, such as reduction of trade tariffs to enable "trade, not aid", with the President now struggling to get Congress to renew the reciprocal trade agreements act for just one year, as the Administration had abandoned its proposals to liberalize tariff policy as being without chance of success. He had sometimes portrayed the Republican division humorously, as in his repeated references during the campaign to whether the Republicans were following the trunk or the tail of their symbolic elephant.
During a speech in San Francisco at the time of the 1952 campaign, Mr. Stevenson had asked rhetorically how a disunited party could unite the country for the hard tasks ahead, stating that he did not think it could, regardless of how great the party's commander, that "divided and embittered men do not win battles."
The Congressional Quarterly discusses the June 14 civil defense drill, the first which had occurred on a nationwide basis since the end of World War II and the dropping of the first atomic bombs on Japan on August 6 and 9, 1945. Some members of Congress were criticizing the civil defense program as "inadequate", "obsolete", and threatening to become a "national scandal". The Federal Civil Defense Administration had warned that while the possibility of a surprise attack was diminishing, it would never entirely disappear. In drafting its assumptions about the nationwide drill, it had said that every target area would be "substantially destroyed", with 2.175 million dead in New York City alone.
The FCDA had been established in 1950 during the Truman Administration, based on the principle that an ounce of preparation was worth a pound of security. It based its plans on the premise that Russia was presently capable of striking any target within the U.S., probably with nuclear weapons delivered by air, and that any city so attacked would suffer damage and casualties far beyond its resources, necessitating, in consequence, provision of outside aid. The agency had cited 193 potential atomic target areas, of which 70, embracing 92 key cities with the largest concentrations of population and industry, were listed as "critical target areas". The major civil defense problem in those "critical areas" would consist of an adequate warning system prior to an enemy attack, dispersal of the population from congested areas and shelter for those who remained behind. By mid-1955, the FCDA estimated that about an hour of warning of an attack would enable civilians to evacuate congested areas by a distance of approximately two miles from the danger zone, whereas the present warning period was only about 20 minutes, leaving only time to "duck and cover".
Principal highways in the country had been posted with signs warning that they would be used as civil defense evacuation routes and about three-fourths of the states had reciprocal civil defense compacts. There were more than 4.5 million civil defense workers in the country and more than half of the warning systems which FCDA had said were needed had been installed. The Conelrad system for public emergency radio broadcasting had become operative on radio dials in 1953 and many test drills, evacuations and exercises had been held in states, cities and schools prior to the nationwide test, involving more than 50 North American cities in both the U.S. and Canada.
The Administration had asked Congress for 85.75 million dollars for FCDA's budget in the ensuing fiscal year, twice as much as it had been allotted in the current fiscal year. But the previous year, the President had requested 150 million dollars, more than three times the final appropriation. It presents a table of the amounts sought by the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations between 1951 and 1954 versus the amounts actually appropriated, the latter being 26, 75, 43 and 46 million dollars, respectively, against requests for 403, 535, 600 and 150 million, respectively.
Congressional critics of the present civil defense program generally wanted the Federal Government to expand its role, but Congress which had set up the program four years earlier had made civil defense primarily the responsibility of the states and cities. Yet, some members of Congress were calling for a larger Federal role, such as Representative R. Walter Riehlman of New York, who had charged on May 6 that the existing program was only a "loose confederation of individual state programs" and "obsolete".
A letter writer, after a day off from the topic in the letters column, returns to subject number one for the previous month, the Brown v. Board of Education decision of May 17, indicating that after reading various letters, it appeared that some believed it fair while others regarded it as unfair, this writer, whose name is withheld, indicating that he or she did not think it was necessary for people of different races to attend school together, as long as their schools were equal. The person acknowledges speaking only for him or herself, and not "for some white person", did not believe in a "master-servant" relationship. The individual says that he or she was happy the way the Lord had made him or her, would honor and recognize his or her own people, and suggests that when everyone of his or her race learned to cooperate and love one another and practiced Christianity among one another, then perhaps everyone could get some extra praise "from white people if that's what we crave", presumably, therefore, suggesting that the person was among the "colored people" to whom the letter consistently refers.
A letter writer urges readers to go to their father, who perhaps had not succeeded in life and thus his heart was sad, but had done the best that he could do and loved his son or daughter with a love that's true, and wish him on Father's Day, "God bless you dear old dad."
If one's father fell into the classification described by the letter writer, would not the son or daughter be tempted, at least, to add to the writer's suggested expression of blessing, "...even if you are a colossal screw-up and complete failure"?
A letter writer from High Point asks whether it was right for the Supreme Court in Brown to have told the 48 states what they must do and whether, if so, the states had any rights left. He says that some of his best friends were "colored", that they were faithful, law-abiding and good citizens and that if one talked to the "better class of them" one would find that they liked to be respected, loved their church and their schools and were perfectly satisfied "to mingle in these sacred institutions with their own". He believes it to be the "inferior class on both sides" who were governed by "some master mind determined to stir up strife and defeat". He thinks that if it were to come to the worst, the Southern states should again secede from the union and "tell the damyankees to stay put", that the South had regained more "than they ever stole from us during the Civil War", and that it appeared, after all, that blacks still loved the South.
A letter writer advises those who were uttering words of indignation and hate in reaction to the Brown decision that they were inciting a potential race riot, and that if they wanted to settle the problem, they should convene a large mass meeting of both black and white citizens and discuss the matter as "sensible civilized Americans should." He indicates that he was a white man and proud of it, was young, and that a few years earlier, had attended high school in Los Angeles with various races of people without trouble. "I and all of my buddies are all young and will have to live in this tired old world probably long after most of you are gone and it seems like all you're going to leave us is a great, big, nasty, sloppy mess." He indicates that hate was one of the worst vices of which he knew, that it would not be a "good deal to have a war going on" within the country, that it would give "a certain group of people just the opportunity they've been looking for". He urges being "God-fearing Americans" and again expresses the hope for such a mass meeting of citizens to work out desegregation peacefully.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.