The Charlotte News

Saturday, September 11, 1954


Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that Senator McCarthy had said this date that he had "a perfect right" to call Senator Ralph Flanders of Vermont "senile", in response to "obscenities" which Senator McCarthy said Senator Flanders had applied to him. Senator Flanders was the sponsor of the censure resolution presently being considered by the six-Senator special committee, before whom Senator McCarthy again testified this date, in response to cross-examination by committee members. The Senator admitted that he had used the word "senile" and that he considered Senator Flanders senile, claiming that he had the same right as anyone else to make such a statement and that Senator Flanders enjoyed no special privilege. He did not specify what "obscenities" Senator Flanders had allegedly applied to him. On June 1, in a speech before the Senate, Senator Flanders had accused Senator McCarthy of Hitler-type tactics, sowing division and confusion among Americans, besmirching responsible government and creating "foreboding" among minorities, such as Jews. Earlier during the cross-examination, Senator McCarthy said that a report issued in January, 1953 by a Senate Elections subcommittee investigating matters brought by former Senator William Benton of Connecticut, had been "dishonest" and that the subcommittee had spent a large amount of money "illegally" in investigating him.

In Bonn, West Germany, Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, appealing for confidence in his policies on the eve of key state elections in Schleswig-Holstein, declared the previous night that a free West Germany would join the Atlantic Alliance. The election would test the Chancellor's leadership for the first time since the French National Assembly had set aside the issue of ratification of the European Defense Community unified army plan, dooming it because of the concern of rearmament of West Germany. The Chancellor told a rally of 7,000 Christian Democrats that West Germany would be prepared to join NATO after it was granted sovereignty. He said that he agreed with the British that a new pact to take the place of EDC would take too long to negotiate, but did not make mention of the fact that the French could block German membership in NATO. Some political observers predicted that the opposition Socialist Party would beat the Christian Democrats in the state election, despite the latter having won 41.3 percent of the vote in that state in the previous year's national elections.

The Federal Housing Administration this date took its first direct step toward claiming for the Government millions of dollars in windfall housing profits achieved by builders through FHA loans which had overstated the value of construction costs, with the difference having been pocketed by the builders. The Senate Banking Committee had been investigating the matter and had determined that numerous builders had achieved such profits.

The Associated Press, in another summary report of ongoing developments in the South regarding response to the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, holding that continued public school segregation was unconstitutional, tells of a former all-white school in Fayetteville, Ark., having admitted five black students, all-female, the previous day, becoming the first high school in the South to break the segregated pattern. The superintendent of schools in Fayetteville said that the school board's decision to integrate the high school had received almost unanimous approval from school patrons. It was anticipated that three other black students would enroll the following Monday as upperclassmen at the high school. In Hammond, La., Southeastern Louisiana College rejected admission of 12 black students attempting to register for the fall term, with the president of the College citing Louisiana's mandatory segregation laws as grounds for rejection. It was one of eight colleges in that state under the supervision of the State Board of Education. Blacks had already attempted to register at Southwestern Louisiana Institute at Lafayette and McNeese College at Lake Charles, with a three-man special Federal District Court panel having ordered Southwestern to admit four black students, after holding that there were no equal accommodations for the higher education of members of the white and black races in the vicinity of Lafayette. In Mississippi, the State House voted 105 to 14 in favor of a bill empowering the Legislature to abolish public schools as a means to circumvent desegregation, the bill to be considered next by the State Senate, where it was practically assured of approval, after more than the necessary two-thirds majority of that body had already signed the bill as co-authors. In Montgomery, Ala., the school superintendent had canceled a meeting with black parents the prior Thursday, saying he had done so after learning that the press had found out about it and that publicity would have defeated the purpose of the meeting, thus describing it as a friendly gesture to the parents. Black children who had sought to enroll the previous week in a new all-white school in Montgomery had been told to attend a nearby all-black school.

In Boston, it was reported that Hurricane Edna was centered between the Massachusetts islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, 20 miles south of Osterville on Cape Cod, by midafternoon. The storm had a forward speed of 24 mph, according to an Air Force radar spokesman, and would likely cross the tip of Cape Cod and leave New England comparatively unharmed if it continued on its present course. The Boston Weather Bureau said at noon that the speed was about 40 mph and that it was centered about 100 miles south-southwest of Nantucket. Earlier this date, it appeared that the storm would strike the tip of Long Island, 125 miles east of New York City, and then hit New England, as Hurricane Carol had done 11 days earlier, leaving 68 dead and nearly $500,000 worth of property damage. Seven persons in New England had already been reported killed by Edna, six having occurred in traffic accidents. At least 1,000 persons had been evacuated from low-lying areas of New Jersey and Long Island in anticipation of the storm.

In Orleansville, Algeria, where a large earthquake had hit two days earlier, additional aftershocks were being felt 48 hours later, causing additional damage to crumbling buildings and other already damaged structures, making movement through the streets increasingly hazardous. It had been estimated that 1,000 persons had died in the earthquake. A few shops had reopened for business and some citizens resumed their usual occupations this date, despite the continuing aftershocks. An official indicated that it was known that more than 600 had died and that at least 1,000 others had been injured in the original 12-second quake. Seismographic institutes of Algiers had counted 69 mild aftershocks since the original temblor.

In Atlantic City, N. J., 50 entrants to the Miss America pageant were competing this weekend for the title, with seven contestants who had won the bathing suit and talent contests now leading the field, while evening gown competition could add other contenders to round out the 10 semifinalists this night. Eventually the field would be narrowed to five finalists, one of whom would win the title late this night. The eventual winner would be Lee Meriwether, 19, Miss California, who would go on to have a well-known television acting career.

In Washington, N.C., police said that an 87-year old spiritualist-evangelist had been shot and killed early this date by a woman who claimed he had put a hex on her. The woman was being held on an open murder charge, having admitted firing five shots into her boarder while he was in bed, saying she had been afraid of him because he had put a hex on her after claiming to be a doctor of medicine, a conjurer and magician from the Dutch East Indies.

In City Recorder's Court in Charlotte had appeared six of seven men who had attended the Harding-Georgetown high school football game the previous night and had been arrested for displaying open bottles of whiskey at an athletic contest, fined $10 plus court costs, while the seventh man had forfeited his $25 bond in failing to appear. Someone put the hex on them.

On the editorial page, "The Indelible Outline of Tragedy" indicates that the verdict of the coroner's jury in the case of Eleanor Rush, 18, who had been found dead in her cell at Woman's Prison in Raleigh on the night of August 20, had found that she had died of a broken neck by way of "her own violent efforts against necessary restraints…" Thus, any culpable negligence on the part of prison authorities who had restrained her was deemed excused.

It finds that the verdict was not unexpected, as the question was whether she had broken her own neck in trying to free herself from the gag and restraining belt into which prison guards had admittedly placed her, or whether her neck was broken in the process of applying the restraints, with the evidence having been insufficient to place blame on the guards. Yet, in finding no negligence, the coroner's jury had tacitly approved of the disciplinary methods which it finds "nothing short of barbarous".

It indicates that the prisoner was a human being and not a mad dog, that while mentally deficient, violent and "incorrigible", there could have been methods utilized to calm her which were less dangerous than restraining her physically and then placing her in an isolation cell, leaving her to struggle on her own helplessly. It finds that to label those inhumane methods "necessary" was to indict the state and its whole system of handling deranged prisoners, that to punish mentally unbalanced prisoners as if they were moral free agents was as irrational as it was unethical, "bordering on medieval brutality".

It was customary at the prison to use violent means to restrain unruly inmates, and it suggests that it should weigh heavily on the consciences of every citizen of the state. It urges that such practices should not continue and that changes ought be made to the prisons to eliminate such treatment. The chief flaw in the system had always been that the prisons were part of the State Highway Department and the Public Works Commission, whose chief interest was the roads and not prisoners, with operation of the prisons entrusted to administrators whose jobs were political and temporary. It finds, therefore, that the prisons ought be removed from the road system and from politics, with trained personnel hired possessing knowledge in modern penology, psychology and prison administration. Adequate facilities ought also be provided for the care of all types of prisoners, all of which, it finds, should be a task undertaken by the upcoming General Assembly in 1955.

Presumably, incidentally, because a coroner's jury findings are only preliminary as to cause of death, here a broken neck, and are not necessarily determinative finally of the causal agency, whether self-inflicted or other-inflicted and if the latter whether justified or not, the determination would appear not to have precluded the Wake County prosecutor from taking the matter before the grand jury for further investigation and potential indictment of the guards and superintendent involved, though, as a practical, political matter in 1954, that was unlikely to occur absent plain evidence of violation by the prison personnel of established and accepted techniques of restraint or the use of excessive force in application of such a technique. Having the grand jury evaluate the evidence and reach a second, independent determination, however, would have been appropriate under the circumstances, especially as it relates to State employees, as the coroner's jury is more concerned with medical causation as deduced from the evidence rather than the legal causation or specific agency. In this case, however, the coroner's jury consisted of a three-person "blue ribbon" panel specially appointed to hear the matter, consisting of the coroner, the Wake County solicitor and a retired school teacher. Thus, given that the solicitor participated in the determination, it was not likely that he would have considered bringing the matter before the grand jury and it would not have rung of unbiased treatment had he done so and the grand jury failed to indict, leaving it to the State Attorney General to perform the duty to afford apparent objectivity.

It was also the case, according to the Prisons director, that there was no "detailed guidance" for implementing the generally stated policies of the prison system, and he subsequently indicated that such a guide was being drafted. That absence of detailed guidance exposed the prison personnel to a wrongful death lawsuit brought both under state law and pursuant to Federal civil rights legislation, 42 USC 1983, whether there was "deliberate indifference", at least under more modern conceptions of punishment since the 1970's, to the well-being of the prisoner amounting to "cruel and unusual punishment" barred by the Eighth Amendment. It was unlikely in 1954 that any lawyer would have had the foresight to bring a civil action under the Federal statute, though it had been on the books since 1871, usually not raised, to that time, in the context of types of punishment or treatment within the jail setting—although its associated criminal civil rights statutes, 18 USC 241-242, based on the same denial or interference with exercise of constitutional rights either by two or more persons acting in concert or by individuals acting under "color of law", that is Federal, state or local officials or those acting under their direction or by contract, had come into use during the Truman Administration on occasion when local or state prosecutors in the South had not acted, as in the 1946 Batesville, S.C., beating and blinding of Army Sgt. Isaac Woodard by the local police chief who had sought to remove him forcibly from an interstate bus as he traveled home after completing his service, as well in the 1946 Moore's Ford, Ga., multiple lynching case, though the latter FBI investigation never was able to produce indictable suspects.

Ms. Rush's mother and administratrix of her estate did bring an action under the State Tort Claims Act, allowing at the time for up to $8,000 in damages, and in September, 1955 would be awarded $3,000 by the State Industrial Commission, finding that there was negligence on the part of the guards and superintendent in the death. On appeal by the Highway Commission to the full Industrial Commission, it upheld, 2 to 1, the initial award of damages, and a Superior Court judge then upheld the administrative finding. On appeal to the State Supreme Court in 1957, the decision was affirmed, 5 to 1, the dissenting Justice finding that the Commission erred in finding from the evidence that there was no contributory negligence of Ms. Rush, an absolute defense in North Carolina to negligence and thus barring recovery (as distinguished from comparative negligence jurisdictions), the dissenter finding that the yelling, cursing and generally disruptive behavior of Ms. Rush which prompted the application of restraints by the personnel sufficed for a finding of contributory negligence.

The majority decision begs the question why, thereafter, there was not a criminal case brought before the grand jury. While the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, or clear and convincing proof as the case may be, is considerably lower in the civil context than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in the criminal context, certainly a finding supported by a preponderance of the evidence, as the Commission's finding necessarily at least had to be for it to be upheld before the State Supreme Court, was quite sufficient to support the much lesser standard of probable cause for indictment or issuance of an information and order to bind over for trial. Generally, that standard is whether there is any substantial evidence, even if contradicted, to support each element of a criminal offense and evidence indicating that the accused committed each element of the offense, whereas preponderance of the evidence is based on whether a particular fact is established to have more likely than not occurred, requiring a weighing of competing evidence, not done in the probable cause context, unless competing evidence renders nugatory the evidence pointing to culpability of the accused, such as by an independently, indisputably documented alibi or other factor rendering it impossible for the accused to have committed the alleged crime. If, under prosecutorial discretion, a determination was made that the evidence did not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt on the issue of negligence, should that decision be relegated to the prosecutor in such a case, where conflicting loyalties could influence that ultimate exercise of discretion? Should it not be left to the jury of twelve good and true to determine in the case where there is enough evidence to support a probable cause finding? In other words, should the personnel responsible have been indicted for involuntary manslaughter? A factor entering into the decision not to prosecute inevitably would have been the lack of "detailed guidance" for the personnel, leaving them to their unguided methods of the moment to "use any means necessary to enforce the observance of discipline", according to the relevant statutes as elucidated by the dissent in the above-linked Gould case, with use of force against the inmate limited to the degree "necessary to quell a disturbance, or to prevent escape, etc.", thus tending toward an indictment of the system, itself, rather than the individuals charged with implementing the policies.

Another question arises as to whether the district solicitor should have been on the coroner's jury, and whether the coroner's jury should have been charged in the first instance with making legal, as opposed to strictly medical causation, determinations, that is a finding of no actionable negligence on the part of the prison personnel. How can such a three-person jury substitute for a grand jury determination of probable cause for indictment for negligent homicide? That is especially true in North Carolina, the State Constitution of which still requires a grand jury indictment for all felony offenses unless waived by the accused in noncapital cases. In effect, the coroner's jury, with the solicitor sitting on it, was being substituted for a probable cause determination by a judge after a preliminary hearing. How is that in any manner independent of the prosecutor's office? Was it not a rigged deck? While it was up to the solicitor to take the matter or not before the grand jury, his participation in the decision finding no negligence appears as a way to avoid political repercussions in the matter by essentially assigning prosecutorial discretion to the three-person body, the other two of whom, one lay person, one medical person, were not trained in the law. Again, why not leave the determination, instead, to the grand jury? Even if there was, beecause these were penal officers, ostensible legal justification under the statutes for them to apply the restraints under the circumstances, potentially a defense to involuntary manslaughter, the issue remained whether they exceeded the necessary force in doing so or were negligent in doing so and in leaving the inmate alone afterward, jury questions.

The potential existed, theoretically, for a Federal civil rights prosecution under 18 USC 242, but that would have required, within the context of the Eisenhower Administration and the Justice Department under the direction of Attorney General Brownell, a hard lobbying effort by the civil rights organizations, unlikely to produce results in the context of administration of a state penal institution, given the greater deference generally of the Eisenhower Administration to states' rights than had characterized generally the Truman Administration, and given that the context of dealing with unruly prisoners in state penal institutions, as contrasted with local jail lynch mob cases, generally was regarded as the province of the states to administer and determine the need for prosecution in the criminal context, leaving harmed parties to civil remedies under state or Federal law if state authorities did not prosecute criminally.

"Late Phone Calls" indicates that Mayor Philip Van Every and several members of the City Council had received late night phone calls recently from angry citizens complaining about the late and noisy show at Memorial Stadium. It indicates that it had been a mistake to let the stadium for such a late show and that the protest of the nearby residents was justified. It indicates, however, that public servants also had a right to sleep and it was inappropriate to disturb them at home during the late hours of the night regarding acts of their agents, finding it entirely appropriate therefore for the Mayor and members of the Council to have taken down the numbers of the complaining parties and returned their phone calls at around 2:00 a.m. to report that the matter had been cleared up.

"Charlotte's Greek Orthodox Community" indicates that most residents of the community, with the exception of those who had arrived during the previous 20 years or so, traced their genealogy back to the Revolutionary period, and many had belonged to local churches since that time. There was also a small group of residents whose ancestral and church backgrounds, while not going back so far locally, were an equal source of pride, those being the members of the Greek Orthodox community.

The following day, they were going to consecrate their new church building on East Boulevard. It had been a little more than 50 years earlier that the first Greek resident had arrived in Charlotte, a sailor who had landed in Charleston and migrated to the city, liked it and decided to stay, bringing along a friend. By 1912, there were still only 25 to 30 Greek citizens present, winning the friendship and respect of the established citizenry. Desiring to have their own church, the Greek community was aided substantially by existing local churches, with St. Peter's Episcopal Church loaning the use of its Sunday School rooms, and the late Dr. Luther Little of the First Baptist Church having also been helpful. Recently, the Westminster Presbyterian Church had sold its building to the Greek Orthodox group and that building would become the diocese headquarters for 11 Southern states.

It indicates that through the years, several groups had been amalgamated into the life of the city successfully, including the Greek community, entering wholeheartedly into the life of the area, and it compliments them for being good neighbors.

"'Welcome, Fellow Immigrants'" indicates that an American Museum of Immigration was being planned, to be located at the base of the Statue of Liberty, to contain historical and cultural records of ancestors who had come to the country from other lands, designed to build national unity.

It finds it remindful of FDR's greeting to the Daughters of the American Revolution the only time he had ever spoken to them, knowing that they were trying to restrict immigration, smiling and saying: "Fellow immigrants." Some of the Daughters had not appreciated the salutation and the President was never invited to return, but he had reminded his listeners of the beginnings of all Americans, except the Indians, and of the true nature of "Americanism". It suggests that perhaps over the doorway to the new museum ought be the slogan: "Welcome, Fellow Immigrants".

Whenever you see a numb skull with one those little red "MAGA" hats on their head, you should probably say to him or her: "Greetings, fellow immigrant."

A piece from the Christian Science Monitor, titled "It Says Here…" tells of a young couple having read several advertisements using the phrase "up to", in terms of salary or savings, or prices "as low as", and that, relying on same, had wound up living happily ever after, able to heat their home for nothing and buzzing around the country for half price. But, it advises, that had occurred in a very far away country where the decimal point was optional.

Edith Falls, writing in State magazine, tells of scuppernong grapes being popular in the sandhills of the state during September. You are welcome to read all about them.

Drew Pearson indicates that one of the factors entering into Governor Dewey's decision not to run for a fourth term was the belief that the President would not, because of his age, seek a second term in 1956. The President had told close friends during the 1952 campaign that he would be a one-term President, and there was a tacit understanding that if he did not run again, he would provide his support to Governor Dewey, who had been central in obtaining the nomination for General Eisenhower. But recently, the President had given some indications that he was liking the job better and would run in 1956, and there were some powerful Republicans who wanted him to do so. According to close friends of Governor Dewey, that was one reason he had decided not to run again, that he believed if he stayed out of public life for a time, he would have a much better chance to come back in 1960 as potentially the party nominee, being relatively young. Taft Republicans were delighted with the Governor's decision and wanted other supporters of Governor Dewey within the Republican Party also to step aside, as there was a lingering amount of bitterness residual of the 1952 Republican convention against the Dewey crowd for branding Senator Everett Dirksen the menace to the party, even if the Senator, himself, had made amends with Governor Dewey. Some of those anti-Dewey people had gone so far as to say they would rather see the Republicans defeated in 1956 than have Dewey-type Republicans continue in and around the White House. Attorney General Herbert Brownell was one such prominent member of the Administration, having managed Governor Dewey's earlier gubernatorial and presidential campaigns. Mr. Pearson notes that the Governor was likely to find that his power in New York politics would be considerably diminished after departing office, as Senator Irving Ives had already taken the Republican organization in New York pretty much away from the Governor, although they remained friends.

He next tells of the inside story of why Congress had never passed the 500 million dollar school construction bill put forward by Senator John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky, who had championed it despite the Administration being against it. Senator Cooper was joined by Senator Lister Hill of Alabama and others, but when Oveta Culp Hobby, HEW Secretary, had been called to testify regarding the bill, she had said that while she was for it in principle, she was against it at the present time, instead proposing a survey and a conference two years later to study the needs for school construction. Senator Hill had objected to that process, pointing out that the 81st Congress of 1949-51 had already spent three million dollars on a school survey, from which it had become known what the needs were. He said there had already been seven national conferences on the matter, going as far back as the Hoover Administration between 1929 and 1933, while the schools in the meantime were becoming increasingly crowded. Senator Hill therefore believed it was time for action rather than talk, indicating that the Eisenhower Administration had made a pledge to help the schools. Senator Cooper agreed with that analysis. When Sam Brownell, commissioner of Education and brother of the Attorney General, had been invited to testify, he initially accepted and then declined, it later having been revealed that it was on direct orders from his superiors at HEW. Secretary Hobby did not want him to testify regarding his prior statement that there was a shortage of 340,000 classrooms across the nation. Because of the persistence of Senators Cooper and Hill, the bill had finally come up for the Senate unanimous consent calendar during the last days of the session, before Senator Richard Russell of Georgia killed it, because, he said, it contained an appropriation which was too large to be acted on without proper debate.

It appeared clear that Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine would win the November general election race, but there appeared to be a fight in store in the gubernatorial race, with the Democrats coming alive in the state for the first time in 20 years, with young Edmund Muskie, a former Congressman, having an outside chance of winning. Mr. Muskie would go on to win the race, would become Senator in 1959, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee with Vice-President Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and an initial favorite to win the Democratic nomination in 1972, before having his campaign derailed by Nixon dirty tricksters who feared the competition, engineering the so-called "Canuck letter" among other things. Subsequently, Mr. Muskie would become Secretary of State for the latter half of 1980, under President Carter, during the Iranian hostage crisis.

Doris Fleeson, in Paris, indicates that Premier Pierre Mendes-France was, debatably, a savior or so and so, with the answer being, with remarkable unanimity among officials, press and private citizens, that they did not know. Some liked him less than others, but they were chiefly those who had some vested interest in his political rivals or in the European Defense Community, blaming the Premier for not having saved EDC. A few with large business interests distrusted his reform programs, but American officials believed that the cartel-ridden French industry had played a major role in defeating EDC because of fear of German competition.

The Premier was consistently secretive, sometimes appearing impulsive, as when he had flown to North Africa with plans for coping with the independence movements in Tunisia and Morocco. U.S. officials who dealt with him, however, did not believe that had been the result of a sudden brainstorm, that he had long previously determined what he would do as Premier. They hoped that he had good, sound ideas for a replacement for EDC, despite his not having suggested yet any alternatives.

U.S. diplomats had obtained a daily diet of frustration when dealing with him on EDC during the previous critical weeks. The one thing he had promised had occurred, however, that EDC would be brought to a vote. U.S. officials were grateful for that, but had never been able to figure out how he felt personally about it. The vote which had finally defeated EDC in the National Assembly was a parliamentary maneuver, and not a direct vote on ratification. It was analogous to the death often suffered by controversial legislation in Congress, with political leaders not wanting to risk loss of prestige on a direct vote. Those in favor of EDC believed that the Premier could have saved it through aggressive leadership, but it was debatable whether that was true. It was, however, clear that he had not provided wholehearted acceptance of it and it was also clear that no one had ever patiently explained well to the French people what EDC meant in terms of European security from Soviet aggression.

A letter writer from Rock Hill, S.C., suggests that the indication on the editorial page masthead that editor Pete McKnight was "on leave" ought to be changed to read "man working", for his work as editor of the Southern School News, to be published monthly by the Southern Education Reporting Service, of which he was also executive director. The writer indicates that it was the first time in American journalistic history that readers were fortunate enough to have a factual reporting service on the status of school segregation in the South, one which would, according to Mr. McKnight, not be an advocate for or against anything or expressing any opinions, but rather providing accurate and objective reporting of facts as it found them. He thanks Mr. McKnight, the Service and those who had provided the funding for it.

A letter writer from Clinton, S.C., comments on the editorial "A New Era of Highway Safety", finding it to be without foundation, indicating that motor vehicle accidents occurred in cycles, that according to the National Safety Council, 85 percent of motorists traveled and drove within the law and that five out of every seven fatal accidents occurred while motorists obeyed the speed limit. The writer indicates that slowing down traffic by as much as ten mph increased the number of accidents, that the reduction of motor vehicle accidents had occurred nationwide and was not limited to North Carolina, that Motor Vehicle commissioner Ed Scheidt and his safety program of "fear and intimidation, copying Communist methods in every detail", had not shown the comparable reduction in accidents in other states, that South Carolina, with all of its resort travel to the seashore, had recorded only four fatal accidents, while "strong-arm" Mr. Scheidt—who had previously been special agent in charge of the FBI offices in Charlotte and then New York—had recorded ten in North Carolina. The writer, who identifies him or herself only as "Motorist", finds the campaign to be one of "subterfuge, deceit, and trapping, spying, 100 m.p.h. rampages on the highway" not fitting into "our plan any more than McCarthyism does".

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.