The Charlotte News
Friday, January 27, 1956
THREE EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that the heart of Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin's letter to the President had been, according to reliable sources, a proposal for a treaty of friendship between Russia and the U.S., coupled with the suggestion that it would promote world peace, with the Premier having reportedly proposed a pact pledging the U.S. and the Soviet Union to the framework of the U.N. Charter and to avoid interference in each other's internal affairs. The proposal was puzzling to diplomats, as the previous year, Russia had canceled somewhat similar treaties with Great Britain and France in angry protest over formation of the Western European Union, part of the arrangement under which West Germany was being rearmed as a member of both the WEU and NATO. Premier Bulganin's letter had been delivered to the President the prior Wednesday and its contents had been closely guarded, although publication of it was anticipated eventually. It appeared unlikely that would occur, however, before his talks the following week with Prime Minister Anthony Eden of Britain. The White House had no comment on the authoritative report that a proposed friendship treaty was the main point of the letter. Both the President and Secretary of State Dulles, while wanting to take advantage of every Soviet move which offered any hope of improving relations between East and West, opposed participation in any kind of agreement which would only raise superficial hopes about peace and create an illusion of greater security. The story suggests that if they were to rebuff Premier Bulganin's proposal on such grounds, they would face the touchy issue of how to go about it without at the same time giving the impression that the U.S. was not interested in friendship with the Soviet Union. Diplomatic experts in Washington saw the proposal as not offering any material alteration of the present basis of relations within the U.N. since its founding in 1945, and that the doctrine of noninterference in internal affairs had been mutually agreed at the time the U.S. had recognized the Soviet Union in 1933.
A decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, sharply narrowing the powers of Congressional committees to expose former Communists, apparently would proceed to the Supreme Court for a final ruling, as Justice Department lawyers began studying the opinion this date, with a view toward asking the Supreme Court to reverse it. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, dividing 2 to 1, had ruled that Congressional committees lacked power to compel witnesses to name former Communist associates just for the sake of exposure, holding that Congressional inquiries had to have as their goals some valid legislative purpose, such as enacting remedial laws. The two judges in the majority questioned whether "exposure of individuals to public contempt and hostility" was a valid legislative purpose, and that in the absence of such a purpose, Congress had no power to expose former Communists and would not have "even if there were a law requiring that former Communists be exposed", as Congress had no power of prosecution. The dissenter in the decision said that the majority had placed the Court in a position above Congress and its committees, limiting the scope of its inquiries to what the Court thought that scope should be, and he viewed the majority opinion as "an interference with the legislative prerogatives and violates the doctrine of separation of powers." The decision had reversed the conviction of contempt of Congress of a man who was a regional organizer for the UAW, who had been convicted in U.S. District Court in Washington the prior May, fined $500 and given a one-year suspended jail term. The defendant had appeared in April, 1954 before HUAC, testifying that he was not then and never had been a card-carrying Communist, but said that while connected with the farm equipment workers union from about 1942 to 1947, he had cooperated with Communists and taken part in their activities "to such a degree that some persons may honestly believe" that he was a member of the party. He had then refused to name for the Committee other persons he had known as Communists during those years and said that he would not talk about former party members or fellow travelers, who, to the best of his knowledge, had long since removed themselves from the Communist movement. He was cited for contempt as a result. He had not invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, contending only that the Committee had no right to demand that he name former Communists. The case would subsequently be taken up en banc by the Court of Appeals and the conviction would be affirmed, with the two judges who had rendered the original opinion dissenting and the previous dissenting judge writing for the majority. (Future Chief Justice Warren Burger had been recently appointed to the Court but did not participate in the en banc decision.) The Supreme Court, however, would hear the case in 1957 and reverse the Court of Appeals decision and thus the conviction for contempt, holding, 6 to 1, in an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren, that the defendant was denied due process because, given the nature of the question he had refused to answer, the "question under inquiry" by the Committee was not whether there were Communists within labor unions. Justice Tom Clark filed the lone dissent and Justices Harold Burton and Charles Whittaker, the latter recently appointed to the Court in 1957, did not participate.
In Tokyo, five U.S. Sabre jets had crashed in the Far East this date, four after they had run out of fuel near Okinawa and the other in Japan, all of the pilots having escaped injury. The loss of the jets had cost about two million dollars, making it the costliest single day of loss of Sabres in the Far East since the Korean War. The Air Force spokesman said that four of the jets had been returning to Okinawa from a brief training mission when they changed course to avoid bad weather, and then ran out of fuel.
In Goldsboro, N.C., it was reported that reactivation of nearby Seymour Johnson Air Force Base had been announced this date by the Air Force, with the redesignated 4435th Air Base Squadron having as its principal task preparing the base for arrival of the 83rd Fighter-Day Wing of the 9th Air Force the following summer. Rehabilitation of the World War II Army Air Force Base had begun in December, 1954, and approximately 15 million dollars had been spent or contracted for its construction, the Defense Department having asked for an additional seven million for rehabilitation work during the ensuing fiscal year. The Air Force had announced about three weeks earlier that contracts for 1,500 family housing units for military personnel would be let shortly and that construction would begin by early summer, involving an expenditure of about 20 million dollars.
In Boiling Springs, N.C., trustees of Gardner-Webb College, a Baptist-supported school in the town, were expected to decide on February 13 whether to permit a black student to enroll as a day student. They would meet to hear a report from a five-member subcommittee appointed the prior December. The Baptist State convention had recently decided to leave such decisions to the trustees of their institutions. The student had written the school the previous year, seeking permission to enroll for the second semester, which had begun during the current month, saying that he would be a day student and thus would not require a dormitory room and would not attempt "forcible admission", citing as his reason for the application the distance he would have to travel to any other college. The students had been polled the prior Wednesday on whether they would favor admission of a black day student, how they would treat the person and whether they could do so with equal respect, whether they would object to the person's participation in athletics and whether they would object to the person eating lunch in the dining hall, with the results of the poll not being disclosed. An opinion poll of the faculty and other residents of the area had also been taken to guide the subcommittee in its recommendations.
In Charlotte, a parking ban on part of Providence Road between Queens Road and Sharon-Amity Road had been instituted this date by the State Highway Commission, but there had been no reference to any prohibition against parking on that stretch of Providence between Queens Road and Caswell Road. A copy of the ordinance unanimously passed by the Commission had been sent to the office of the chairman, A. H. Graham, and was read to the newspaper by the secretary, who could not provide information on the lack of reference to the parking ban on the other stretch of road. Well, let's get that all straightened out before it is too late.
Donald MacDonald of The News indicates that two Mecklenburg County police officers had rescued a Lincolnton man early in the morning as a routine check of a parked car had turned into a hair-raising 100-mph chase. The victim had picked up his assailants at a North Carolina grill and had asked them to drive him home, as he had been drinking and did not want to risk driving to the neighboring town. He was to have stood trial in County Recorder's Court the previous day on a drunk driving charge, but his case had been postponed. The police officers had chased the two men driving the man's car as they headed back into Charlotte at speeds of at least 100 mph. At the Five Points intersection, the driver turned out the headlights and eluded the County officers, but a short time later, City police had spotted the car as it crashed into a parked station wagon behind the First Presbyterian Church on West Fifth Street, at which point both men had jumped from the car and fled on foot, apprehended eventually at their homes by the two County officers, acting on information received from the victim. The driver of the car was charged with speeding, reckless driving, hit-and-run, larceny of an automobile, robbery and assault, and the other man, who had no previous record, was charged with assault, robbery, larceny of an automobile and aiding and abetting the speeding, reckless driving and hit-and-run charges.
In Charlotte, burglars had broken into three safes the previous night, two of them at one company, and a third at the Hawthorne Lane Methodist Church, taking about $100 in cash from the company safes and getting no money out of the church safe, where only records were kept. Details of how the thieves had accomplished the entries are provided, in case you want to try it also.
In Boston, police had picked up a 17-year old boy, whom they said was seeking to build a criminal record to avoid military service, having been suspected of robbing the same grocery store twice in less than three weeks.
In Omaha, a farmer whose mother had asked him to hide $960 for her the previous November, had taken the money and stuffed it into his wallet, placing the wallet into a metal cash box and shoving the box into a tunnel between two chicken houses, checking on the money the prior December, and finding it still present, but checking it again the previous week to find that the wallet contained no money, prompting the farmer to call the sheriff, whose deputies also found no money, taking the metal box to headquarters along with the wallet and beginning an investigation. The previous day, a special investigator had seen the box on the shelf, had taken it down, dusted it off and picked out the wallet, also initially finding no money when he opened it, until his fingers slipped into an opening at the bottom of the wallet where all of the money was contained. The farmer said that he was unaware that the wallet had two parts, and that he would now deposit the money in a bank.
In Davis, Calif., an animal husbandry professor at the University of California at Davis, who had been watching horses for 20 years, wondering why they chewed wood from fence posts and barn doors, said to a farm and home conference sponsored by the University that they did not know exactly why it was that a horse would chew as much as a tenth of a pound of wood per day. He had shown the confreres various samples of gnawed fence posts, saying that the horses loved redwood. He and some experts believed that the animals were just bored standing around with nothing to do and that chewing wood was a way of expending nervous energy. He said that they had learned that the horses would not chew wood which was treated with creosote about three times per year. They had also discovered that diets containing various amounts of calcium, phosphorus, copper and plain baking soda appeared to have no effect on the chewing of wood by the horses, that horses of all ages chewed wood, leading him to believe that they did not do it because of their teeth, that horses in large fields full of succulent alfalfa still chewed on fence posts, and so it did not appear to have anything to do with their diet, that young stallions would cut down on wood-chewing during breeding seasons and that mares with colts chewed less than those without them. Chew on that.
In Trenton, N.J., the judges of a spelling bee had been embarrassed when they failed to note that a contestant had dropped an "r" in the word "embarrassment", and then had been overruled by a 13-year old girl when they had disqualified another 13-year old girl for putting an "e" at the end of "glycerine", when an up-to-date dictionary allowed either spelling, with or without an "e". The same girl who had provided the corrective help had spelled "pigmy", and thereby was disqualified by the judges, until she appealed the decision and a recheck of the dictionary allowed the alternative to "pygmy". The judges said that the reasons for the errors had been that they were using a 25-year old dictionary and that they would plan to purchase a new one for the following year's contest. The winner, a boy of 12, received a new wristwatch.
In Lexington, Ky., a fire alarm dispatcher promised to care for three goldfish in a bowl after the owner of the goldfish had been arrested and charged with public drunkenness while carrying the bowl around in a department store and was jailed for 30 days, having dumped three packages of fish food into the bowl, along with several marbles, some pennies and mothballs.
On the editorial page, "Health Insurance Must Be Extended" indicates that the President's health program for the ensuing fiscal year offered the nation a choice of weapons to meet the critical problem of medical care for millions of Americans who were annually strained by the high cost of catastrophic illness, including legislation to permit "pooling of risks" by private companies so that they could offer broader benefits and expanded coverage of health insurance, and a Federal reinsurance plan, which had gotten nowhere in the previous two sessions of Congress. He had said that if no "practical and useful methods" could be found on a risk-sharing basis, he would revive reinsurance as a recommended solution.
It indicates that the flexible nature of the proposal would help neither system win wide support, another illustration of the President's "rather overcautious attitude toward the whole problem of medical care." It finds that the cries of socialized medicine which had occurred in response to his reinsurance plan had been unfair and without foundation, that the plan had been reasonable and had fit the well-known conservative-liberal concept of the Government's welfare role, leaving the people to their own "enterprise and initiative", but with the Government having an obligation to alleviate "unavoidable misfortune and distress".
It finds such a situation extant in the U.S. at present, where it had been reported the previous year that the nation's medical bill ran over ten billion dollars, an increase of three billion since 1948, 25 percent of which had been covered by some form of prepaid health insurance. The remaining population, however, had to dig into their savings or go into severe debt to pay for the bills of doctors, hospitals and support personnel, as well as the physical necessities of medical care.
It suggests that those most in need were perhaps older people and those residing in rural areas, but that there were others who needed better health protection as well, the self-employed and workers employed by small organizations who could not be covered through ordinary group insurance plans.
It finds that while there had been an extension of coverage, the improvements had not been fast enough and it was plain that the Government needed to assume part of the risk to provide for satisfactory expansion of coverage. It finds that the Administration appeared to be wavering in its leadership resolve in that area by providing an alternative approach, which it deems unsatisfactory, that it remained for Congress to seize the initiative. "The problem is too serious to lie limp and untended for another session."
"New Tools for a Continuing Task" indicates that if the President was less than firm in his health insurance proposals, he had been appropriately emphatic about the manner in which other health problems should be approached, requesting 126.5 million dollars for basic research into cancer and other leading killers.
The previous year, the President had recommended that only 73.9 million dollars be spent for five key medical research programs, a little more than half the 139.6 million recommended by professional advisory councils.
It finds that in addition to approval of the President's proposal, favorable attention ought also be given by Congress to other parts of his health program for fiscal 1957, including a new program of grants for construction of medical research and training facilities, steps to alleviate health personnel shortages through grants for training practical nurses, trusteeships for graduate nurses and other public health specialties, and strengthening of basic health facilities generally, including the first comprehensive survey of U.S. illness in the previous 20 years. It finds those to be essential requirements and that with the nation's health of utmost importance, the President had proposed strong new tools to do the job.
"Hockey: An Old Game on New Ice" indicates that it had taken a couple of centuries for ice hockey to come to Charlotte from the frozen rivers and lakes of Europe where it had developed from field hockey, that in the interim, the game had changed from neighborly free-for-alls on ice to a sport with mass appeal, the national game of Canada, with standardized rules and equipment.
The sport retained enough body contact to satisfy football and boxing fans, as the writer had seen it in newsreels.
It hopes that the Baltimore Clippers would receive a warm welcome in Charlotte when they would play six of their last home games at the Coliseum, as the more reception they would receive, the greater would be the likelihood that Charlotte would get its own team in the Eastern League the following year. It suggests that regular hockey competition in the Coliseum would add greatly to its growing reputation as a sports center and, thereby, ensure its financial success.
It thus congratulates the Charlotte promoters of the hockey games and hopes that in the future, it would see someone known from the newsreels playing hockey in Charlotte.
The Clippers would relocate to Charlotte in 1956, after their Baltimore playing facility had burned down, retaining their team name until 1960 when they became the Checkers, and so the writer's hopes would be fulfilled.
A piece from The Reporter, titled "So Long, Buck", finds that it had been bad enough when they had started making Westerns realistic, but now they were also going to make them wholesome, an unfortunate trend already apparent in the movies when the tenors with guitars had started taking the place of "solid six-gun cowboys".
Now, the television networks were admitting what they were doing, which it finds ominous. A spokesman for NBC had said that the "cowboy hero now meets his pals in railroad stations, post offices, or other innocent places rather than in bars or pool rooms." It suggests that the hero would now stroll into the "Silver Dollar Post Office", without a trace of swagger as it was difficult to swagger in a post office, would meet his friends over by the parcel-post window and say something like, "Well, pals, what innocent places shall we visit tonight?" The NBC spokesman had also said that the new television cowboy did not slay the villain in a pistol duel, but rather only winged him and then brought him to the formal justice of a court, that the cowboy now spoke the King's English. The piece suggests that he would therefore say something like: "It is I! I shall wing you on the finger, and take you to the law court."
The NBC spokesman had told of the improvements before a meeting in New York of the Joint Legislative Committee to Study the Publication and Dissemination of Offensive and Obscene Material.
It suggests that the old saloon, with its gunfights and swinging doors, had not been a place of wrongdoing, but rather had been a part of the "essential scenery of a romantic and fictional land which was as unreal, remote, and wonderful to the boy in Wyoming as to the boy in East Orange, New Jersey." The taciturn drawl of the cowboy had never been the speech of a real world but part of a myth of the strong, lone, silent man of action, who served the good people and licked the bad ones, had one good horse and never was dependent "on nobody. On anybody."
It suggests that the classic Western was wholly different from the "atrocious perversities of horror comic books and Mickey Spillane", that in the latter, there was always fierce enjoyment of the torture which the brutal hero meted out to the villain, whereas the cowboys of old never did such things, that when he knocked someone off a cliff, the audience did not see the fall but almost instantly saw the cowboy hero bidding "farewell to the lovesick young female whose ranch he had saved, riding off on his faithful white horse into the sunset. Clean up the old time Western indeed! Smile when you say that, pardner."
Drew Pearson again looks at the lobbying effort behind the bill to deregulate natural gas, pushed by a relatively small group of men from big oil and gas. He indicates that the Federal Power Commission had shown that 70 percent of all gas purchased by the pipelines came from only 42 oil and gas producers, causing Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois to introduce an amendment to the bill exempting the smaller producers, numbering several thousand, from Federal regulations, while still maintaining the large producers under regulation. Simultaneously, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon had drafted an amendment which, if the deregulation bill passed, would require every unregulated company to forfeit the 27.5 percent oil depletion allowance and also forfeit its right to deduct from taxes the cost of drilling wells.
Mr. Pearson indicates that those tax bonanzas, which were not provided other American industries, constituted the primary reason for the political power of the Texas oil millionaires and explained why they could make some Senators jump through hoops at their beck and call.
He indicates that few people realized the power of the Texas gas and oil tycoons, benefiting from the 27.5 percent depletion allowance, able to write off the entire cost of drilling a well in a single year. When a farmer built a barn, he could write off the cost over the period of depreciation, 30 years, and when he purchased farm equipment, he could get the write-off over a period of eight years. Even U.S. Steel had to spread its tax amortization on a new plant over a period of five years, but only if it received special permission from the Treasury.
He proceeds to provide biographical sketches of the Texas tycoons who now wanted further special exemption from the Supreme Court ruling that natural gas had to be regulated under provisions passed previously by Congress. H. L. Hunt, a former gambler from El Dorado, Ark., and considered the wealthiest man in the world, had an income of $140,000 per day, was worth two billion dollars, and had been a heavy supporter of General MacArthur for the presidency and Senator McCarthy for almost anything he wanted, that during his backing of the latter, he had taken over four different radio and television programs which he offered free to networks, "Facts Forum", "Answers for Americans", "Reporters Round-Up", and "State of the Nation", all operated by foundations and thus tax-free, some of them featured in a book by Allan Zoll, whose American Patriots was on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations.
Clint Murchison, considered the third richest oil and gas man in the world, owned Henry Holt Book Publishing Co., extensive distributor of textbooks, as well as Field & Stream magazine and part of Martha Washington Candies. He operated Diversified Investments, Inc., of Minneapolis, and had put up part of the money to obtain control of the New York Central Railroad, owned Atlantic Life Insurance Co. of Richmond, Va., many motels, hotels and drive-in theaters, plus the Del Mar Race Track, part of the Transcontinental Bus Co., and a West Coast steamship lines. He had frequently entertained Senator McCarthy, had helped to finance his campaign to defeat Senator Millard Tydings of Maryland in 1950, including payment for the tabloid which had featured a fake picture of Senator Tydings with Earl Browder of the Communist Party.
Roy Cullen, who did not know of his own worth, had given away about 175 million dollars, including political contributions to key Senators and gifts to General MacArthur's campaign committee, had supported Senator George Malone of Nevada with a donation of $1,000, Senator Frank Barrett of Wyoming, with the contribution of $2,500, and had donated the same amount to Senator James Beall of Maryland, all Republicans. Senators Malone and Barrett were presently listed as being supportive of the natural gas bill, while Senator Beall was leaning in favor of it. Mr. Cullen had also contributed $1,000 to the campaign of Congressman James Devereaux of Maryland, who had voted for the gas bill, and $1,000 to the campaign fund of Senator Arthur Watkins of Utah, listed as leaning in favor of the bill. Mr. Cullen's son-in-law, Corbin Strong, had contributed $5,000 to each of Senators Barrett and Barry Goldwater of Arizona, both supporting the bill. He hated former Presidents Truman and Roosevelt and had once asked former Vice-President John Nance Garner of Texas, who had served under FDR between 1933 and 1941, to abolish all taxes except the sales tax and customs duties.
A letter writer from Lincolnton finds teachers at a financial disadvantage to other professionals, such as doctors, by having to attend at least five years of higher education to become well-certified, but not receiving nearly the financial compensation of other professionals. The anonymous writer does not think that Federal aid was the solution, wants public schools set up similar to other state agencies, enabling teachers to carry out educational policy instead of being checked by a board of education and a community committee, which inevitably was involved in politics. The writer suggests having local committees appointed only for the purpose of helping the professionals determine what the community needed and not to decide whether the community needed the services of a particular professional person, with the right to hire and fire left to the superintendents of the schools. The writer thinks that the current system would inevitably ruin the teaching profession through rabble-rousing parents running out good teachers. The writer wants the General Assembly in 1957 to provide superintendents four-year contracts and to abolish local trouble-shooters, moves which the writer believes would attract well-qualified teachers.
A letter writer from Whiteville suggests that "our Southern Negroes have an easy time of it, compared to the 14th-century Irish", that the first racial segregation law had been enacted for the purpose of "'keeping the Irish in their place.'" He recounts that the Statute of Kilkenny had made the Irish a foreigner in their own land and reduced them to a level below that of a slave, that it had been enacted for the sole purpose of degrading and humiliating the Irish, the purpose of any racial segregation law. He says that the South had its own "Little Kilkennies", "each one a veritable masterpiece of bigotry, prejudice, and inhumanity." He says that he was not in favor of mixing and mingling of the races, but that segregation was good or bad depending on viewpoint, indicates that history had borne witness to the fact that the original racial segregation law in Kilkenny had not crushed the gallant Irish, though remaining in force for a long time, that the Irish had produced some of the greatest scholars, writers, soldiers and empire builders. He predicts the same future for "our colored brethren", even if they were kept in their place for another hundred years. Eventually they would produce "peerless men and women of the very finest calibre who will further enrich our Anglo-Saxon culture, as did the downtrodden and persecuted Irish." But in the meantime, he believes, blacks should not be "so infernally anxious for 'equality'", as they were still "serving their cultural apprenticeship." He says that racial segregation laws did have tradition and precedents in their favor, as the Statute of Kilkenny had been enacted nearly 600 years earlier, before the discovery of America. "Let's not be too harsh on the bigots. They mean well, even though most of the time they do approach the problem rather ignorantly."
A letter writer from Gaffney, S.C., responds to a previous letter writer who had condemned capital punishment as barbaric, this writer saying that there was great difference between murder and lawful execution for murder, as much as there was between truth and lie. He had heard about the South Carolina man, to whom the previous writer had referred, who had been dragged to the electric chair, protesting that he had not meant to kill anyone, convicted of killing a woman in front of her invalid husband, who was also injured. He says that when the previous writer mentioned the execution of murderers as being a breach of society, he regarded it as a society of "cut throats, criminals and murderers", that if it could be known who the murderers were, the country would be better off if they were executed before they murdered innocent people. He considers the person who "kicks against the legal vindication of the law for murder and desires the murderer to be turned loose for 'their society' is not much better himself." He says that the person facing execution had not heeded the cries of the innocent persons he had slain in cold blood, "devil-possessed, murderous crave for his victim." He quotes the Bible: "If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest."
A letter writer from Mt. Gilead indicates that at a recent meeting of the Mecklenburg Presbytery, there had been a preamble of several pages adopted which had attempted to prove the arguments that segregation was un-Christian. He defies anyone, layman or minister, to prove that there was anything in Holy Writ to substantiate such "propaganda", that if God had not so decreed, there would not have been a white and black race. He views the Supreme Court as having virtually said that God had made a mistake and that the Court, by a stroke of a pen, would correct it. He says that he has no hate or prejudice against blacks, that a lot of them were his friends, as he was "raised up with them, and as a race with help of white people of this state." He finds that with the exception of "a few agitators that care nothing whatever for the well-being of their races, the majority of Negroes do not want integration in churches and schools; they have their customs and laws of social order and are satisfied with same." He believes that in his county, blacks had better equipped and more modern high schools than whites, that the white people of the county were glad to support the construction of those schools, paying approximately 97 percent of the taxes in the county, but that "the Anglo-Saxons of this county and the state of North Carolina will never submit to integration when neither race wants it." He says that in their own Presbyterian Church in the United States, if such a resolution were adopted, there would be tens of thousands of people who would walk out. He loves the Presbyterian heritage, "tracing it back to Inverness in the land of Skye, Scotland, for over 200 years," says that he could trace and prove that for six generations his family clan had furnished officers in the Presbyterian Church, but that he was not going along with "this integration scheme", believes that the Supreme Court opinion in Brown v. Board of Education had been "Communist-inspired."
Them other Presbyterians are just Commies, aren't they? They are not of your clan's persuasion.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.