The Charlotte News
Wednesday, November 7, 1956
THREE EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that in the election the previous day, the President had built up currently, as of 10:30 a.m. EST, a margin of more than eight million votes over Adlai Stevenson, appearing to surpass his landslide of 1952, with the popular votes being 30,015,335 for the President to 21,708,379 for Mr. Stevenson. In 1952, the President had won 39 states and 442 electoral votes to Mr. Stevenson's 89 votes. The President had added Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia to the 1952 list of states won but appeared likely to lose Missouri, which he had won in 1952. He had won the popular vote by 6.6 million in 1952 and appeared headed to a nine-million vote victory in the current election, with the President's total of 33,927,441 received in 1952 likely to be surpassed. Mr. Stevenson had carried only six states in the Deep South, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina, which, along with Missouri, had a total of 74 electoral votes. (It should be noted that, normally, North Carolina is not considered part of the "Deep South", but perhaps the Associated Press was so classifying it in 1956 because of its stance in circumvention of Brown v. Board of Education, having approved in a September referendum a State Constitutional amendment permitting public tuition grants to private schools for students not wishing to attend an integrated school and allowing local school units to vote by local referendum to close their schools. But under such a classification, Virginia in 1956 would also have to have been considered even more of a "Deep South" state, which begins, even more so than inclusion of North Carolina, to strain the geographical, if not the sociological, mapping of the region.) In the early morning hours, the President spoke to supporters, saying that he would continue his efforts for peace, and expressed his "most grateful thanks" to those who he said had voted for "principles and ideals" and not "merely for an individual". With Vice-President Nixon standing nearby, he told 2,000 cheering Republicans assembled at Washington's Sheraton-Park Hotel at 1:45 a.m.: "With whatever talents the good God has given me, with whatever strength there is within me, I will continue, and so will my associates, to do just one thing—to work for 168 million Americans here at home, and for peace in the world." He made the address minutes after Mr. Stevenson had conceded defeat and sent "warm congratulations" to the President, the full text of the concession message appearing on page 2. The President said further that he believed that modern Republicanism had now proved itself and that America had approved of modern Republicanism. The address was broadcast nationwide on television and radio.
A state-by-state tabulation of the vote is provided. The final tally would be 35,579,180 for the President to 26,028,028 for Mr Stevenson, or 57.4 to 42 percent, the President receiving 457 electoral votes to 73 for Mr. Stevenson, one faithless elector out of Alabama having eventually cast a vote for Walter Jones. Mr. Stevenson had carried all of the states indicated in the reports of this date.
Meanwhile, the Democrats appeared to have survived the landslide of the President to retain control of both houses of Congress, the first time in the history of the present two-party system that a President had failed to carry at least one house in his election. At 10:30, the Democrats had elected 211 members to the House, seven short of the majority, and were ahead in 22 of the undecided 42 contests, Republicans having won 185 seats and ahead in 17 others. In the 35 Senate contests being decided, Democrats had won 16 and Republicans, 15, with the Democrats leading in the remaining four. The Democrats had 31 existing seats and the Republicans, 30, with 49 seats needed for Democratic control, but only 48 for Republican control, since Vice-President Nixon could break ties. Republican Senator James Duff of Pennsylvania, one of the President's earliest supporters, had been defeated by Democrat Joseph Clark, Jr., a former Mayor of Philadelphia. The Democrats had also taken two other seats from the Republicans, those of Senator Herman Welker of Idaho and Senator George Bender of Ohio, the latter having lost to Governor Frank Lausche, the former to Frank Church. But the Republicans had also picked up three seats from the Democrats, in Kentucky, where former Senator John Sherman Cooper had won the seat vacated by the death the previous April of Senator and former Vice-President Alben Barkley; in New York, where Jacob Javits won the seat being vacated by Senator Herbert Lehman, defeating New York City Mayor Robert Wagner; and in West Virginia, where former Republican Senator Chapman Revercomb won the the seat vacated by the death of Senator Harley Kilgore the prior February, such that the net gain thus far had been zero for each side. Two more races of significance were as yet undecided at this juncture, in Kentucky, where Republican Thruston Morton would eventually defeat incumbent Democratic Senator Earle Clements, and in Colorado, where Democrat John Carroll would win the seat vacated by retiring Republican Senator Eugene Millikin. The Democrats would thus have 49 seats and the Republicans 47 at the start of the 85th Congress, with no net change. In the House, Democrats would have 233 seats and the Republicans, 200, a net pickup for the Democrats of five seats from the constituency at the end of the 84th Congress.
As the President had received election returns the previous night, he had maintained a close watch on developments in Hungary and the Middle East. At around midnight, the White House announced that the President had just received a "very friendly and encouraging" message from French Premier Guy Mollet regarding efforts to halt the shooting in Egypt. The contents of the message were not made public.
In London, it was reported that there was continued fighting in the Middle East, despite a shaky ceasefire. Prime Minister Anthony Eden told Commons that there had been "some shooting" during the day at Port Said in the Suez Canal Zone, indicating that Britain had no official confirmation that Egypt had accepted a U.N. ceasefire order. Cairo radio, in a broadcast reported from Beirut, Lebanon, had charged that British-French forces had waged continuing attacks "in defiance of the U.N. call for a ceasefire." Mr. Eden said that he did not want to emphasize the shooting at Port Said, stating that Britain and France had not the "slightest intention" of moving ahead of their present positions or pushing in additional forces, aside from administrative and security elements. Threats of Communist intervention and a declaration by Israeli Premier David Ben-Gurion, indicating that he would refuse to pull back troops from the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula, further threatened the fragile peace, only hours old. Premier Ben-Gurion declared that the 1949 armistice with Egypt was dead, indicating that Israel would not agree to any foreign forces "no matter under what name" being stationed on Israeli soil or territory. Soviet Defense Minister Marshal Georgi Zhukov, in a Bolshevik Revolution anniversary speech in Moscow, declared that Russia was ready to send military forces to throw British, French and Israeli troops out of Egypt, provided it received U.N. approval. Two of Russia's satellites, Rumania and Czechoslovakia, had offered in New York to contribute troops to the U.N. as part of an international police force in the Middle East. An Egyptian diplomat in Hong Kong said that 250,000 Communist Chinese had volunteered for Egypt's "struggle against aggression". Soviet reserve officers were reported by another Egyptian diplomat to be volunteering in Moscow.
In Vienna, Hungarian radio stations had gone off the air abruptly this date amid signs that the Russians were on a rampage against rebel holdouts. A rebel broadcast said that Dunapentele, an anti-Communist stronghold in the Danube valley south of Budapest, was under Soviet attack and Russian planes were bombing the town. The report came in a broadcast by Radio Rakoczy monitored in Munich by Radio Free Europe. It then announced that it was ceasing transmission indefinitely, presumably from a portable transmitter. Hours earlier, the Russian-controlled Radio Budapest and stations at Pecs, in southern Hungary, and at Szombathely, near the Austrian frontier, had mysteriously gone silent. An Italian newspaper claimed that it had succeeded in establishing brief contact with a rebel radio transmitter in Budapest and was informed that the fighting still raged. A diplomatic source in Vienna said that he had received information that the rebellion was continuing in several sections of Budapest and in other parts of the country. In London, British undersecretary of state for foreign affairs, Lord John Hope, told Commons that the Communists had imposed a strict curfew in Budapest and were shooting any violators on sight. He said that reports to London indicated fighting was still ongoing in Budapest late the previous night, despite repeated Russian demands for surrender of the rebels' arms, with some sections of the city in flames. He said that according to a Red Cross report, civilian casualties from Russian firing had become very heavy, with the curfew imposed with deadly consequences for violation. He said that the Communists had abandoned the pretense that Hungarians were fighting side-by-side with Russians, indicating that the fighting was strictly a Soviet repressive campaign. He reported that he had appealed to Moscow on behalf of the British Government to grant permission to Red Cross convoys to enter Hungary with food and medicine from Vienna, but that Russia had not yet provided permission to those convoys to enter the country.
In Mecklenburg County, out of 95,622 registered voters, 76,736, or 80 percent, had voted in the presidential race, while 72,839, or 76 percent, had voted in the Congressional race between incumbent Representative Charles Jonas and challenger Ben Douglas. In the presidential race, the President had received 48,365 votes to 28,371 for Mr. Stevenson in the county, the President receiving 61 percent of the vote. In the Congressional race, Mr. Jonas had received 47,760 votes, or 65 percent, to 25,079 for Mr. Douglas. Overall in the 10th Congressional District, Mr. Jonas had received 91,870 votes to 53,911 for Mr. Douglas, with all except two precincts reporting. The margin was greater than in 1954 for Mr. Jonas, when he had won by 13,000 in the county, and in 1952, when he had defeated incumbent Representative Hamilton Jones by 10,000 votes in Mecklenburg, the most populous county in the district. In the gubernatorial race, incumbent Governor Luther Hodges had received 44,755 votes to the Republican candidate, who polled 23,243 votes in the county. In the U.S. Senate race, incumbent Senator Sam Ervin had received 39,643 votes to 23,954 for his Republican challenger. The Mecklenburg results in other local and state races are also provided.
On the editorial page, "Ike Represented Stability and Safety to the Nation's 'Satisfied' Citizenry" finds that the spectacular triumph of the President the previous day was essentially a triumph of the status quo, "an expression of faith in a changeless political Nirvana conjured up in the minds of millions of Americans who are as devoted to the idea of Eisenhower as they are to the man himself." It finds that to a vast, impressionable majority of voters, the President represented stability and safety.
Mr. Eisenhower had once exclaimed to John Gunther that if only a man could have "courage enough to take the leadership of the middle!" It finds that in four years, he had done just that, and if he had not rebuilt American conservatism into a viable political instrument, he had re-established a kind of political sanity which had borrowed from both the right and the left, representing moderation, "the half-way meeting point cheerfully recognized as Good."
It finds that to attribute his landslide victory to a "personality cult" and the "Eisenhower aura" was too simple, that it was more than that, being a combination of the President's personal radiance, the righteous uplift of what was loosely called the Eisenhower program and the attractiveness of the status quo, which Mr. Stevenson had found unconquerable on election day. It finds the personality of the President to have been the clincher, the one attribute which assured his political invulnerability. It finds that there was something durable, massive and unusually likable about him, which rose above the professional "I Like Ike" "yammering" of the campaign.
Yet, Americans did not parade indiscriminately behind every pleasing political personality who appeared on the scene. Economically and socially, the currents were running in the President's favor, with there being peace and prosperity in the country.
The task of Mr. Stevenson had been to assert truth, to unveil illusion, to set in motion the forces of instruction and imagination which would produce a "New America". It finds the effort well-intentioned but hopeless, even though Mr. Stevenson had tested the Eisenhower "fortress" with courage and candor, and his efforts had not been entirely in vain, having made a significant contribution to the political morality of the age, which it predicts would become more apparent as subsequent years would pass.
It finds that the victory of the
President had not sounded the death knell for liberalism in its
purest state or for the hopes of those who were dedicated to Mr.
Stevenson's New America
The President now faced stern responsibilities which would test his mettle as a leader more fully than had the national campaign.
The Western alliance, which the President had worked so determinedly to hold together for so long, was crumbling, with the Geneva spirit of July, 1955 at the Big Four summit, having been replaced by a new and desperate despair, with explosive problems remaining to be solved within the Soviet satellites and in the Middle East.
At home, there were several domestic issues as well, the problem of racial desegregation, which it finds would be with the country for years to come. There was also the issue of tax relief for individuals and small businesses, Federal aid to schools, revisions of labor laws and the immigration code, farm price supports, civil rights generally and anti-inflationary controls, among others.
It thus finds that the way ahead would not be easy for even such a popular leader as the President, that he would face the danger of diminishing influence within his own party now that he was a lame-duck President, unable to run again. His controversial Vice-President had already become the Republican Party's man of the future "and the Nixon star will undoubtedly rise swiftly during the next four years."
But it finds that the President was superbly equipped to deal with the day-to-day tribulations of a nation which, on the whole, was stable and satisfied with itself. Having won an overwhelming vote of confidence from the citizens, it finds that it would be nothing less than outrageous to suggest that their faith was misplaced.
"Jonas & Douglas: A Shared Capacity" indicates that the Democratic Party had fielded its strongest candidate in years in the race for the 10th District Congressional seat, in former Charlotte Mayor Ben Douglas. But he had never been able to penetrate the huge personal following of Republican Representative Charles Jonas, the only Republican in the North Carolina Congressional delegation.
It finds that what had been billed as a political combat between two party stalwarts had dissolved into another case of the party versus the man, in that case, "the man" being Mr. Jonas, who deserved congratulations from even the most practical of politicians for the manner in which he had again attracted support from both Democrats and Republicans in the district.
It finds it attributable to the conscientious manner in which Mr. Jonas had represented the district and to his lofty standing as an individual.
It also finds that Mr. Douglas was a man of considerable ability and standing, having served the city and the state well in the past, and that his capacity for future service remained great.
"Join the Will for Peace with Prayer" indicates that everywhere among the people of the world this date, there was a will for peace. Yet there was no peace. It finds that the will was strong, but that it had not been joined in a force strong enough to break through the walls of history, heritage and national instinct which compartmentalized mankind, leading one group to imagine the other as war-like, thus necessitating donning armor.
It finds that people could not get together except through prayer, the universal bond. It was why churches everywhere would be opening their doors for special prayers during the week for peace and justice.
In Charlotte, the Presbyterian Ministers' Association had called on churches and temples to be open this night and all of the following day for prayer. It finds that it was the least the ministers could do and the most, for prayer "leaps over walls that men have erected between themselves." It was the only medium for putting all of their separate hopes for peace together and making them meaningful.
It indicates that the calls to
prayer had to be answered, for not in a decade had the walls between
men seemed so high and so insurmountable. But they had to be
surmounted
A piece from the Asheville Citizen, titled "Mr. Brinkley's Beard", tells of a woman having done research, finding that a North Carolina mountain man, Sam Brinkley of Buladean, who had died many years earlier, had the longest beard in the world. He stood 5 feet, 10 inches tall and his beard had reached to the floor. On one occasion, a small boy, sleeping with Mr. Brinkley, dreamed that he was playing in a haymow and became tangled in the hay, awakening to find himself almost strangled in Mr. Brinkley's beard.
The beard had earned Mr. Brinkley jobs with three circuses, but he was more than merely a curiosity. Deeply religious, his life was upright and well ordered and he was a teacher by profession. He grew his beard long simply because he wanted to do so, and until someone would come along with proof of a longer one, he would go down in the newspaper's book as another superlative for Western North Carolina, the man with the longest beard in the world.
Drew Pearson indicates that newspapermen were supposed to report and not pontificate, but having recently returned from the Near East and having a deep conviction that the future peace of the world was more at stake in that area than many realized, he was proposing a pattern for peace, which he indicates was not original, with parts of it having been proposed by Eric Johnston, who was constantly laboring for peace in the Near East, by Harry Truman, by E. M. Greenwood, and others.
He says that the foundation for peace in the region had to be based on two things, first, Arab-Jewish cooperation, with both having attributes the other needed, the Jews having skill, know-how, energy and determination, and the Arabs having oil, land, population, a once-great history which had now been semi-bankrupted by corrupt leaders, poverty-stricken people and colonial exploitation. They were both Semitic peoples, and as the chief rabbi of Israel, Isaac Herzog, had told Mr. Pearson in Jerusalem about a month earlier: "The Arabs are our cousins. There is no reason why we cannot live together to show that the Jews, the Egyptians and the Syrians would inherit the Near East." He had cited the 19th chapter of Isaiah.
The second foundational factor for peace was that there had to be reasonable guarantees for France, England and the West to have their ships transit the Suez Canal and for their property and citizens in North Africa. He indicates that the French and British had not always been wise in North Africa, but economically, they could provide that area as much as it could give them, and that there should be mutual cooperation.
He finds that Suez could not be settled separately from the friction between the Israelis and Arabs, as Secretary of State Dulles had tried to do. Israel had known that as soon as Premier Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt would win his argument, after nationalizing the Suez Canal the prior July 26, he would attack Israel, and so it attacked Egypt first. Peace in North Africa was also inextricably tied to the Suez issue, as barring the French and British from use of the canal immediately affected the lives and safety of French and Western citizens in Algiers and Morocco, as well as American oil in Saudi Arabia. Those issues could not be dealt with in separate diplomatic compartments, as Mr. Dulles had sought to do.
He suggests that a U.N. police force, as proposed by the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lester Pearson, be implemented to stop the fighting in the Suez area, strengthening the prestige of the badly wounded U.N. He also suggests keeping the Sinai Peninsula under the U.N. indefinitely, as a canal zone, similar to the Panama Canal. The Sinai was a hot, arid desert except for the canal, which the French had built and the British had supported. He proposes that it could become a permanent, international zone under U.N. auspices for the use of all nations. Third, he suggests letting the U.N. pay Egypt a regular fee for use of the canal zone, which would finance the Aswan Dam in Egypt and improve the health and living standards of the impoverished Egyptian people. Fourth, he proposes setting up a long-range development corporation under the U.N. to develop North Africa and the Near East for the benefit of their peoples.
He finds that U.S. ambassadors to France and England had been caught looking by the British-French decision to invade Egypt, with Ambassador Winthrop Aldrich, former head of the Chase Bank, who had done a pretty good job thus far as Ambassador to England, having wired Secretary Dulles that no invasion was contemplated, while Ambassador Douglas Dillon in Paris, a partner in the Dillon, Read investment firm, had been treated like a schoolboy, whereby for two weeks, the French Foreign Office had refused to talk with him or his staff, until finally, a low-ranking official assured the Embassy that there was nothing to the rumors that France was about to intervene in the Suez. General Maxwell Taylor, the Army chief of staff, when consulted by the White House, had warned that the most the U.S. Army could send to the Middle East were three divisions, as other divisions were tied up in Europe, Alaska and the Far East. General Taylor had said that it would take a full week to get even a token force to the region.
Marquis Childs finds that in the rush and heat of a political campaign, expediency led otherwise sane and sensible men to say things which they might not under calmer circumstances. "The little heads are already bobbing up to say, in effect, that if only Adlai Stevenson had been more expedient he would have had a better chance of winning." The comment was made with regard particularly to Mr. Stevenson's urging that testing of the hydrogen bomb cease because of increasing accumulations of radioactivity in the atmosphere. But the "wise boys" found there to be no political mileage in the stance.
Mr. Childs, however, asserts that Mr. Stevenson had performed for the nation and the world a great service, if only in exposing some of the secrecy maintained around the question of contamination of the atmosphere and the potential threat to human life on earth posed by it. Denials from the White House and Atomic Energy Commission chairman Lewis Strauss could not obscure the peril caused by unlimited testing.
People high in the Administration did recommend, while denying the claim, that the Government put forth proposals for limiting or halting at least temporarily hydrogen bomb tests. One of those was Secretary of State Dulles, who expressed the belief that America's position before the world would be greatly strengthened if the U.S. were to go to the U.N. General Assembly with such a proposal of limiting tests by agreement among the atomic powers. Harold Stassen, the President's adviser on peace, had also opined that such a proposal would contribute to getting the disarmament debate off the status quo where it had been stalled for some time. Mr. Childs indicates that the latter point was what Mr. Stevenson had been arguing should be the basis for initiating talks toward ending the tests.
Secretary Dulles and Mr. Stassen had made their recommendations prior to the September 11 meeting of the National Security Council, at which Pentagon officials were adamantly opposed to any gesture which might curtail the right of unlimited nuclear testing. One policymaker had thrown up his hands after the meeting and said, in seeming despair: "This is the greatest mistake the Eisenhower Administration has made thus far."
While the President had never approved any change in the Administration's position on testing, there was no unanimity within the Administration on the point, with some feeling almost as strongly on the matter as Mr. Stevenson.
In the wake of Mr. Stevenson's suggestion, there had come some intimation of the peril of continued testing, with Dr. Everts Graham, one of the nation's leading cancer specialists, having said that the present concentration of Strontium 90 comprised a public health problem of serious magnitude which could not be dismissed, as Admiral Strauss was doing. A report by Warren Unna, in the Washington Post and Times-Herald, which Mr. Childs believes had received too little attention, had presented a dismaying picture based on the word of leading scientists who could not let their names be used because of the official secrecy, regarding the deadly trap into which mankind was walking blindfolded.
Remarkable advances had been made on the ICBM, with the Air Force rapidly approaching the testing phase of that ultimate weapon, to be tested first without an atomic warhead. If the testing proceeded with a nuclear warhead without a concomitant effort to halt the process by realistic mutual agreement, then, he posits, the nation would have reached the point of no return.
Some of the partisans within the AEC were now saying that since the guns had begun firing in the Middle East, the argument of Mr. Stevenson had been completely invalidated. Mr. Childs views it as akin to saying that since children had begun to use their pop guns, people had to hurry to make sure that they were equipped with atomic hand grenades. He views it as a recommended design, not merely for disaster, but for annihilation.
He suggests that given the perspective of even a few years, Mr. Stevenson's challenge on the hydrogen bomb would stand out for what it was, "a courageous attempt to check the race to self-destruction." While perhaps it did not win elections, in a calmer atmosphere after the election, the question might be re-examined and might win a reprieve for mankind.
That reprieve would come in August, 1963 with the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, promulgated and approved during the Kennedy Administration, banning atmospheric and underwater testing by mutual consent of the nuclear powers, the U.S., Russia and Britain. The Treaty's urgency had been made manifest by the October, 1962 nuclear standoff between Russia and the U.S., occasioned by the placement of missiles in Cuba with offensive capability and strike accuracy assured against the U.S., just 90 miles off the Florida coast.
Robert C. Ruark, in Palamos, Spain, discusses the oft-repeated plaint that New York City did not have enough cops to make the streets safe for the citizens and the parks safe for the children, suggesting that the solution was to use the police as police, instead of stooges. He had come to this conclusion after reading that the Parks commissioner, Robert Moses, had recently stated that a full-time attendant could not be provided for a playground because of severe budgetary limitations, replying to a woman who said that a playground at 110th Street and Central Park West was unfit for children. According to the newspapers, the woman had said that the playground was littered with broken whiskey bottles, that the benches surrounding the playground had become a sort of home for homeless prostitutes, and that the once lovely shrubs had become restrooms for the shameless.
There were about 25,000 police
officers in New York City, not counting the ersatz ones who took
tolls on bridges, and it took quite some time to train police
officers, having to learn at least the rudiments of law so that the
officer would know the charge on which he was arresting a man. The
officer also had to learn to shoot, to take and identify
fingerprints, to do detective work, to handle traffic, to disperse
mobs, to patrol in cars and an hundred other details. Mr. Ruark
states parenthetically that in some instances, the officer had to
learn how to shake down
He finds it a shameful waste of manpower to assign trained officers to the task of ticketing cars for parking violations, issuing summonses for littering or not curbing dogs, or playing master of ceremonies at parades. Police officers were not necessary to run a switchboard or handle the paperwork at the station, with the officer only becoming fat and sloppy on such duty. A small boy could ticket a car illegally parked. A lot of the nonessential duties could be handled by retired officers or other people on pensions for a fee to augment their pensions at a small cost to the municipal budget.
He indicates that he and his wife had once lived in the neighborhood of 83rd Street and Central Park, and his wife had walked the dog sporadically, just off Fifth Avenue in a good section of the city. But she had quit walking the dog, one of the reasons having been that a certain pervert did awful things in front of children, and after the fourth or fifth such incident, she had called a passing cop and pointed out the man, to which the cop had merely yawned and asked whether the dog had a license. He and his wife had been attacked by three young thugs at 85th Street, just off Madison Avenue, and he had seen no cops to call, presuming that station house detail and parking tickets were taking up their time.
Thus, he reiterates his solution to
use cops as police, rather than as flunkies or clerks, to enable
people to walk their dogs in safety
A letter writer from Rock Hill, S.C., tells of a letter from a reader published by Harry Golden in his "incomparable" Carolina Israelite having stated: "Now don't you Democrats go crying about the one-party press. I have never seen such a one-party paper like yours. Discontinue my subscription." He says that an important citizen of Charlotte had recently told him that he had canceled his subscription to the News, following its approval of the Republican candidates for President and Vice-President. He wonders why readers should refuse to read newspapers or other publications only because the views of the editors did not coincide with their political beliefs. He says he did not agree with their selection of candidates, but canceling the subscription in protest was strange. He finds that in the present times, one of the ways to alienate friends and make enemies was openly to state a political preference. He finds that such reticence had come from the doubts and insecurities engendered by the McCarthys and their ilk. He had observed more than ten presidential elections and could not recall unwillingness on the part of people to discuss their political choice, but finds in 1956 that there were no candidate buttons being displayed, parades, meetings, signs in the store windows or other evidence of unabashed and open expression of choice. He wonders whether they had reached George Orwell's 1984 in 1956.
A letter from the commanding officer of the local squadron of the Navy Reserve Program, expresses appreciation for the newspaper's cooperation, having arranged to have reporter Dick Bayer write a story for the newspaper, which he believes would be very beneficial to the overall morale of the squadron, while serving to keep readers better informed about their activities.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.