The Charlotte News
Tuesday, October 30, 1956
THREE EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page
reports from Cairo that Egypt and Israel had received a stern warning
from Britain and France this date to cease fighting in the Sinai
Peninsula, the Western powers threatening to occupy key positions in
the Suez Canal Zone unless a cease-fire occurred within 12 hours. The
announcement had come as Egyptian and Israeli forces were clashing
deep within the Peninsula, which Israel had invaded
In London, it was reported that Britain had sent a massive fleet through the eastern Mediterranean this date and had begun emergency talks with the U.S. and France regarding the new fighting in the Middle East, with both Prime Minister Eden and French Premier Guy Mollet having held special cabinet meetings. M. Mollet and Foreign Minister Christian Pineau had arranged flights to London this date to meet with Prime Minister Eden and Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd. Both Governments were in frequent contact with the State Department. The British fleet included two cruisers, two fleet aircraft carriers, destroyer and frigate squadrons, submarines, marine transports and supply ships.
In Paris, it was reported that France and Britain had agreed to send troops to the Suez Canal area, according to a member of the French National Assembly who refused to be identified by name. He said that the decision had been reached this date in London by Premier Mollet and Prime Minister Eden, predicting that it would be announced to both parliaments this night.
The Eisenhower Administration was reported this date to have alerted Congressional leaders for possible emergency conferences at the White House regarding the crisis, with a high official having said that word had been sent during the morning to Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, Senate Minority Leader William Knowland, House Republican leader Joseph Martin, as well to Senator Walter George of Georgia and Representative James Richards of South Carolina, chairmen, respectively, of the Senate and House Foreign Policy Committees.
The U.S. 6th Fleet this date was reported poised to help evacuate Americans or support any U.N. action in the area of Egypt and Israel, with major units of the fleet having left Turkish and Greek ports on Sunday night, reported this date cruising between Crete and Cyprus, from 250 to 300 miles from the Mediterranean end of the Suez Canal.
From Vienna, it was reported in a late bulletin that Budapest Radio late this date had broadcast an announcement by Premier Imre Nagy of Hungary that Soviet troops had started withdrawing from Budapest, following the popular uprising there of the previous week, begun with student protests, then met with violence from the secret police, prompting, in turn, counter-violence from the protesters, with an apparent cease-fire and withdrawal agreement by the Russian troops and armed forces having been announced the previous day. Hungary's Communist Government had virtually conceded complete victory to the revolutionary forces this date and called on the nation to prepare for free elections, with Premier Nagy announcing that one-party Communist rule had been abolished. He told the nation that he had called on the Soviet Army command to begin immediate withdrawal of Soviet troops from Budapest, proposing in a broadcast the formation of a coalition government consisting of several parties, similar to that which had been established just after the end of World War II in 1945. The Peasant Party and a moderate party of farmers and businessmen, the Smallholders, had been among the most popular at that earlier time. Fighting had slacked off at a barracks which was the rebel strong point during the week of revolt. Insurgents who had held out against Soviet tank fire had marched out defiantly during the morning, however, and announced that they would not put down their arms until the Russians had withdrawn from Budapest. Five Soviet tanks remained parked about 500 yards from the barracks. Radio Budapest had promised that the Russians would begin withdrawing to their Hungarian bases early in the morning "after insurgent forces start surrendering their arms." That hour had passed without confirmation of any general withdrawal, prior to the late bulletin. Premier Nagy, once imprisoned as a Titoist, had reiterated a pledge that his Government would begin at the earliest possible time to negotiate with the Soviet Government for complete withdrawal of Russian soldiers from Hungary. A broadcast also announced that all of Budapest's Danube River bridges could be used again by the population, those bridges having been under the control of Russian units. Rebel forces holding much of the Hungarian countryside had urged that the arms surrender agreement announced in Budapest be disregarded. The poorest tenement area of Budapest had been reported the previous night to be the site of a hold-out by 100 rebels against the Russian tanks, of which at least 100, plus armored cars, had been deployed around the slum district in the eastern part of Budapest. Correspondents who entered the slum area had asked the rebels why they were still fighting on the seventh day of the revolt, after repeated offers of amnesty from the Nagy Government, responding that they were not interested in anything but that the "Russkies" go home. Most of the insurgents in the area were youths around age 20, armed with only antiquated rifles, submachine guns and homemade gasoline bombs, but were nevertheless able to hold out against the tank attacks because of their knowledge of the ground.
Because of the crisis between Israel and Egypt, campaign plans of the President had been clouded this date, leading to cancellation of a flying trip the following day to Texas, Oklahoma and Tennessee, according to White House press secretary James Hagerty, with the campaign plans placed on a day-to-day basis, with election day one week away.
Adlai Stevenson described the Middle East crisis as an example of how the President had endangered the peace by withholding "the whole truth" on world events, with Mr. Stevenson having scheduled appearances this date in Baltimore, Camden, N.J., and Philadelphia.
Vice-President Nixon wound up his campaigning in California with a motorcade through the Los Angeles area, scheduled to make a statewide television address this night from San Diego. Senator Estes Kefauver, speaking at the University of Illinois during the late morning, said that Israel's thrust into Egypt "knocks into a cocked hat the peaceful slogan of the Republican campaign."
In High Point, N.C., an 18-year old male, dubbed the "Hooded Bandit of Lover's Lane", was sentenced in Guilford County Superior Court this date to 25 to 28 years in prison for kidnaping, assault with intent to commit rape, robbery, breaking and entering and larceny. The judge told the defendant that he could have sentenced him to life imprisonment on any of the major charges, indicating that he was imposing a lesser sentence, with terms imposed to run concurrently on several of the counts, in the belief that the defendant could be rehabilitated. He had been arrested in July after two occasions on which automobiles parked on a lonely road near Sedgefield had been entered and their occupants robbed. He was charged with raping a female of Raleigh, an occupant of one of the cars, with the court accepting a plea of guilty to the lesser charge of assault with intent to commit rape. The kidnaping charges had arisen from reports that persons had been removed from cars and tied up, with the cars then stolen. He had also been convicted of several break-ins in the Sedgefield area, where he lived. Police said that the defendant had told them that a motion picture had given him the idea of approaching parked cars. A deputy sheriff who arrested the defendant testified on cross-examination that the defendant had a good reputation and was a good worker, helping to support eight younger brothers and sisters. What was the movie? It obviously was not "The Bad Seed" this time.
Jim Scotton of The News reports that safe-crackers had gotten $2,000 in cash and $3,000 in checks in a break-in some time the previous night at the Dixie News Co. in Charlotte, the thieves having punched or ripped open three separate safes, obtaining all of the money from one of them. It was the fifth major safe job in Charlotte during the previous two months, in which thieves had taken nearly $10,000, most of it in cash. The thieves had first pried open a window into a next-door body shop and then forced a large double door to gain access to the robbed establishment. The robbery had been discovered by an office employee when she arrived at work during the morning. Charlotte Police Chief Frank Littlejohn said that the recent safe-crackings were part of a wave of them across the country, indicating that safe-crackers were always active in the fall months because of the heavy amounts of money being spent and left in safes during that period. He said that many of the safe-crackings could be prevented by people depositing large amounts of money in night depositories at banks rather than leaving them in safes. He also said that it was apparent that some of the jobs were the work of a professional group of thieves, and he assured that eventually the police would catch them.
Julian Scheer of The News indicates that it was unknown yet whether the Navy would withdraw from the 2,300-acre shell depot on York Road in June, as scheduled, the newspaper having received information that the Navy Department was still contemplating the retention of the reservation for its own uses, with the Navy having not yet agreed to lease any part of the tract for civilian or military usage. Representative Charles Jonas had talked with Navy Department officials this date and was told that no final decision had been made as to whether it would be retained for military usage or made available for civilian purposes. Under Federal regulations, Navy Ordnance had given up its title to the property and other Defense Department groups could submit requests for the property, with the Navy, which had developed the site, getting first priority for non-ordnance uses. Mr. Jonas said that apparently the Navy's thinking had changed.
On the editorial page, "Arabs & Israel Threaten World Peace" indicates that the question was not whether Israel's deep invasion of Egyptian territory meant war between Israel and the Arab world, as that war had been ongoing for almost a decade since the 1949 truce, but rather whether a new world war was erupting in that region.
Americans might expect a great war to erupt off Formosa or in Korea, but the daily routine of border clashes in the Middle East had dulled their comprehension of that region's great potential for tragedy. The emergence of Russia as a Middle East power and the concomitants of armed confederation led by Premier Nasser in Egypt, the threats to the oil lifelines of the West, and Premier Nasser's seizure of the Suez Canal on July 26, had all combined with the old problems of Arab-Israeli hatred to create a new and grave threat to world peace.
Yet, Secretary of State Dulles appeared somewhat hurt recently when asked what steps were planned to "retrieve" U.S. prestige in that region, indicating that the word "retrieve" was not appropriate, as its prestige remained intact. But it finds that the prestige of the Western Big Three had undoubtedly slipped in the Middle East while Russia's was on the rise. That change in circumstance had provided the powder, while the tinder was supplied by the unsettled issues of the Arab-Israeli war which touched off increasingly serious incidents. There had been no agreement on borders, repatriation of Arab refugees by Israel or recognition of Israel by the Arabs. The great powers could no longer afford to treat the violence between Arabs and Israelis as only "border incidents". The conflict had to be recognized as a threat to world peace and new efforts made to find a basis for its settlement.
It finds that the first step had to be rigid observance of the truce by Israel and the Arab states.
"Good Schools Cost Less in Long Run" indicates that assumption of the City's old school bond indebtedness by Mecklenburg County was vitally important to the community's educational welfare, and that the decision by the County Commission the previous day to submit the proposal to the voters on December 8 had been an act of necessity, which, if it met the test of legality, might open the way to at least a temporary solution to the problem of the classroom shortages in both the city and county. The City had $310,000 outstanding from a million dollar bond issue approved in 1924, and if the County would be permitted to assume the obligation, the legal limit on school issues would be increased from 5 to 8 percent of the assessed countywide property valuation.
It was increasingly apparent that the additional cushion would be necessary if minimum school building requirements were to be met.
The County presently handled all financial arrangements for new school construction in both school systems, and an election had already been scheduled for December 8 for the issuance of 5 million dollars in school bonds.
It finds that County School superintendent J. W. Wilson was undoubtedly correct in maintaining that the county had greater school building requirements than any other county in the state, with migration and rising birth rates having placed tremendous strains on the present facilities. In the most populous and most progressive county in the state, there was no valid reason for substandard, overcrowded classrooms, as presently was the condition for many of the children. Good schools were expensive, but not nearly so in the long run as poor ones.
"U.S. Provides an Address for Hope" indicates that for different reasons, the Russians and some domestic orators were crediting the Government with causing the Soviet satellite revolts. It finds the credit misplaced, as it all belonged to the Hungarians and Poles who were under tyranny, nourishing "the spirit of freedom in the secret places of their souls." To say that the U.S. Government, past or present, was responsible for their great achievement was "to push exaggeration over the brink of indecency."
It finds that the Government had acted prudently to encourage the separation of the satellites from Russia. Under former President Truman, the break of Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia from Stalin had been supported by U.S. economic and military aid, a policy continued by the Eisenhower Administration. But neither Administration had been responsible for acts resembling "liberation of the satellites", as promised by John Foster Dulles during the 1952 campaign, about which little had been done since the beginning of the Administration in 1953.
While those fostering the revolutions had to believe that the free world would give their revolts lasting value, the hope was addressed no more specifically to the U.S. than to Britain, France, Italy or the Scandinavian states. Its essential quality was the belief that liberty would triumph regardless of the odds against it in any given area, because liberty was loved by the majority of the peoples of the world. It finds that in that sense, Americans and other free peoples had contributed to the revolt by maintaining societies which were free and thus provided an address to which the highest hopes of the enslaved might be sent.
It indicates that now that the Hungarians and the Poles had laid down blood advancing their hopes and had partially succeeded in escaping the domination of the Soviets, the U.S. might find material means to help consolidate their gains. But it reiterates that the U.S. could not have caused those revolts except by being free, a result for which no administration could claim credit.
"Divided Government: Certain Tragedy?" indicates that now that the pollsters had settled the question of who would win the presidential election, a new political goblin had been raised to alarm the electorate, that in addition to the President winning re-election, there would also continue to be a Democratic Congress, described variously as either being a horrid historical calamity, a frightening consequence or an unheard of irregularity.
It finds that it would be an historical oddity but not necessarily calamitous. Only once before in U.S. history had the voters in a single election given the presidency to one party and both houses of Congress to another, that having occurred in 1848 when Zachary Taylor, a Whig, was elected the President and the Democrats had been elected the majority party in both the House and Senate. But divided government had occurred a dozen times before in off-year elections since the Civil War, the current 84th Congress being an example.
A Democratic House had been elected along with Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and a Republican Senate had been elected with Democratic President Grover Cleveland in 1884. There had been a rather confused situation at the succession to the Presidency of Vice-President Andrew Johnson, nominally a Democrat, in April, 1865, having run with President Lincoln in 1864 on the Union Party ticket, but it refrains from going deeply into that situation.
It indicates that it was possible that the unusual election-year split of parties in 1848 would be repeated in the current year—as it would be—, as Mr. Eisenhower's personal popularity was obviously greater than that of the Republican Party and that there was doubt that the coattails of the President would be as long as they had been in 1952. But even if a Democratic Congress was a rather dubious reward for the President, he could still face the future with some degree of confidence, as he had been able to work reasonably well with the Democratic Congress since 1955, and in some areas, the Democrats had been friendlier to Administration policy than had the Republicans.
It concludes that partisan differences in the country were not so sharply defined as to imperil the nation's welfare when the people elected a divided government, and it was neither an automatic tragedy when the tradition was upset.
A piece from the Memphis Press-Scimitar, titled "A Well-Read Man", indicates that in Corpus Christi, Tex., a man had won an argument with the cops after being arrested for drunk driving and detained for a blood test, then handed a release to sign. He had been sober enough to read the fine print of the release, which gave his consent to amputate his leg, naturally prompting his refusal. The cops had sheepishly admitted to the judge that they had provided him the wrong form, and so the judge dismissed the case.
The piece advises to let it be a lesson never to get blind drunk in more than one eye at a time.
Drew Pearson tells of getting some cold feet about his "confessions" appearing in the Saturday Evening Post, now that he had seen them in type. First, he finds that it was hard to tell the truth about one's self, as almost everyone considered himself a greater hero than he actually was, unable to place himself on the same lowly pedestal as the rest of humanity. And so trying to tell the truth about one's own mistakes and foibles was pride-shattering. He offers as example trying to figure out whether former President Truman had been justified when he called him an S.O.B., having to admit in his heart that he probably was, while believing that he probably was not on the particular occasion prompting the remark, when General Harry Vaughan, Mr. Truman's military aide, had received a medal from dictator Juan Peron of Argentina. But he concedes that there were plenty of other times when Mr. Truman was probably correct.
Nevertheless, he finds it much tougher than expected to spell those things out in print, and now that the first issue had hit the newsstands, he was beginning to become somewhat nervous, wondering whether it had been such a good idea, predicting that his critics would get a kick out of it while his friends either might not read it or would be tolerant if they did.
One revelation he had made was how Justice Felix Frankfurter had asked then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson to have him prosecuted for contempt after he reported that Chief Justice Fred Vinson had a conversation with President Truman about the coal strike called by UMW head John L. Lewis. It had never occurred to Mr. Pearson that there was anything wrong about the President and the Chief Justice discussing a coal strike which endangered the nation's economy, but since an injunction against Mr. Lewis and the UMW was then pending before the Supreme Court, he had offended at least Justice Frankfurter in the process. Secretary Acheson had proposed to Attorney General Tom Clark at a Cabinet meeting that Mr. Pearson be prosecuted for contempt, but Mr. Clark had not taken the advice and he was still out of jail, though he adds that he never could tell for how long.
Mr. Acheson had received a lot of criticism while Secretary, for, among other things, not trying to operate on the Chinese mainland to undercut Communist China and for not betting all of the diplomatic chips on Nationalist Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek. His theory had been that if the U.S. quit waving the big stick at China, it would turn into a Titoist-type regime, drifting toward independence from Moscow, also arguing that the satellite countries of Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia would eventually divorce themselves from Moscow because those countries basically did not like Russian rule and had little in common with the Russians. Mr. Acheson's "containment policy", evolved by State Department chief planner George Kennan, the Russian expert whose resignation Secretary of State Dulles had accepted, had been torn to pieces by Secretary Dulles publicly, while being followed privately.
On September 18, 1952, while campaigning for General Eisenhower, Mr. Dulles had made a speech to the Polish-Americans of Buffalo, N.Y., promising to intervene actively and stir up revolt behind the Iron Curtain. But once he got into office, he had done just the opposite, continuing the containment policy. Mr. Pearson says that he was aware of that fact because he had dealt with the State Department under both the direction of Mr. Acheson and Mr. Dulles, to obtain more launching bases for the Freedom Balloons across the Iron Curtain. Mr. Dulles had also carried out the Acheson policy of aiding Marshal Tito, as had President Eisenhower and Harold Stassen.
Marquis Childs tells of it feeling like it had been a long time since the President, in his late August acceptance speech of the nomination at the Republican convention, had warned against complacency, speaking of the "new Republicanism" and its obligation to the country and the world. He finds that, to some degree, the warning had been heeded within the party.
In the early phase of the campaign, Adlai Stevenson and Senator Kefauver had been rallying Democratic leaders around the country, leading Republicans to believe that they might be in trouble, with even some of the most committed journalists writing that the Republicans might be on the verge of throwing away another election. But since that time, complacency had risen until it was now off the chart, with Republicans now believing that a landslide was imminent, with almost every poll bearing out that confidence. They believed that the President and his personal popularity would be enough for victory. He finds that in that respect, the Eisenhower campaign bore resemblance to that of FDR in 1936, when he ran for his second term against Alf Landon.
He finds the speeches of the President tending to be gentle homilies on how much more happiness he saw in people's faces than four years earlier, suggesting it as a shrewd strategy. FDR, in 1936, had carried every state except Maine and Vermont. But complacency was a dangerous thing, both for political campaigns and for American foreign policy as projected into the campaign.
Mr. Stevenson had been trying to challenge the attitude in the Administration that as long as the President was in power, there was no reason for concern, no need to worry about disarmament talks having been stalled for awhile or of the Egyptian arms deal with the Soviets and the Suez Canal crisis, placing the Soviets in the Middle East, that there was also no need to worry about the attrition within NATO. Secretary of State Dulles was the ablest lawyer-advocate a client could possibly want, having perfected the art of advocacy and, insofar as he had participated in the campaign, had been telling people that all was for the best in the best possible of worlds. He had been asked on a television program how the country would "retrieve" its position in the Middle East, the Secretary reacting indignantly at the word "retrieve", that there was no question of it as the country's position had not been harmed.
Mr. Childs suggests that the President's "self-righteous" letter to Premier Nikolai Bulganin of Russia, regarding the latter's suggestion of halting hydrogen bomb testing, in line with the advocacy of same by Adlai Stevenson, could not have helped relations with the rest of the world, with the U.S. having formed defensive attitudes in support of status quo policies.
Then had come the revolt within the Soviet satellites, in Poland and Hungary, concerning U.S. foreign policy and the domestic politics of the country, fitting into the pattern of the President's career for the previous 16 years. But, he suggests, if the comfortable belief were taken that the country could sit back and watch the Communist empire fall to pieces, giving a little encouragement to it on occasion, the country was in for trouble, as it would be the kind of complacency which stifled creativity and imagination, ignoring a fundamental fact about which the President had spoken with great feeling when he had been NATO supreme commander, between late 1950 and mid-1952. The country had become increasingly dependent on foreign sources for a large amount of the materials vital to its survival. The rate at which the country was using those vital materials would give rise to a rapid increase in that dependence, proving that the U.S. had to lead the coalition of the free nations, not out of an idealistic impulse but for its own survival. If it had been true in 1951, it was now doubly true, and it meant above all that a complacent view of the current upheaval within the Soviet sphere, no matter how fortuitous it was for purposes of the election, was a dangerous and unwarranted luxury.
A letter writer indicates that saturation of the atmosphere from nuclear fallout from continued tests of hydrogen bombs would be beneficial to neither Republicans nor Democrats, thus wondering why the Republicans were trying to brush the hydrogen bomb under the rug, gambling in the process with the future of all mankind. He believes that Adlai Stevenson was correct in his urging that all tests of hydrogen weaponry be stopped, regardless of what the "one-party press" said. He considers the major issue in the election to be the distinction between Mr. Stevenson's unwillingness to accept defeat in the search for a way to restrict the hydrogen bomb and the Administration's unwillingness to consider or even discuss new ideas in that all-important field.
A letter writer from Great Falls, S.C., indicates that during the Eisenhower Administration, whenever the Democrats in Congress had proposed a bill, whether for the relief of the farmers' burden by supporting 90 percent parity price supports or to help relieve the burden of people in the lower income brackets by reducing taxes, to help the aged by building some comfortable but cheaper housing projects, to reduce the age to 50 for the disabled to be eligible for Social Security, or to reduce the age of women to 62 from 65 to be eligible for Social Security benefits, the Administration had opposed each. But during the 1952 campaign, Mr. Eisenhower had promised to help enact all of those bills if elected. The people had trusted him and believed in him, and so voted for him, never realizing that he only wanted their votes, that when referring to the people, he had meant only the select few or the corporations. He says that the President was doing the same thing in the current campaign and that his promises meant no more at present than they had in 1952. He calls special attention to the women of the country, because the President used his charm, particularly on younger women, "who don't have any political experience". If he could fight against helping the aged women and disabled of 50 and over from obtaining Social Security benefits, he questions what considerations younger people should expect. He indicates that in Drew Pearson's column of a few days earlier, he had told of the Administration favoring one of the richest men in the country and owner of many corporations while also being a member of the Cabinet, making it evident whom the Administration actually represented.
A letter writer indicates that many would give to the United Appeal, those who worked and appreciated being able to work and who were not crippled or blind, those who gave having love and sympathy for those in need. She indicates that money was no good if stored away, as a person could not take it along at death. (Maybe only a couple of coins, one for each eye, for the oarsman to cross the deceased over the River Styx, but that's all in Greek.) She finds that many at present had plenty of money, making more than they would ever be able to spend and that if they would open their hearts and give to those in need, they would be happier and rewarded. She hopes that the goal of the Appeal would be reached to make it possible for the blind, the crippled and the spastics to have a better life.
A letter writer from Lincolnton indicates that 68 million people were gainfully employed at the highest wages in history and that there had been restoration of dignity and integrity to the Presidency, while for the first time in years, Americans were not fighting abroad, leading him to counsel voting Republican, adding "'Prosper in Peace!'"
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.