The Charlotte News

Friday, February 17, 1956

FIVE EDITORIALS

Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that the State Department this date had canceled a shipment of 18 U.S. light tanks which had been destined for Saudi Arabia, it not being yet clear whether it would quiet the clamor caused by an announcement just nine hours earlier that the tanks were to be shipped from New York later this date. The reversal had the effect of blocking the dispatch of the tanks to the Middle East, where their arrival might have stirred new excitement and perhaps trouble in the Israeli-Arab tinderbox. The announcement late the previous day that the tanks were to be shipped had brought denunciation from a number of Democrats in the Senate and from the Israeli Embassy, the latter complaining, "Utterly beyond our comprehension." The State Department had already stalled Israel's request to purchase 50 million dollars worth of American arms for the previous several months, saying that it wanted to avoid an arms race in the Middle East, making the surprise announcement about the sale of the tanks to the Saudis that much more startling. It had also said that the sale of Communist arms to Egypt had tended to upset the power balance in the region. A shipment of U.S. weapons to an Arab country would have given Russia an argument that it was all right for the Communists to supply arms to the Arabs, as the U.S. was doing the same thing. Thus, the State Department had decided to halt the shipment temporarily, "pending further examination." It was not yet known how the Arab nations would react. The U.S. was about to enter negotiations with Saudi Arabia for renewal of an agreement under which the U.S. maintained an Air Force base at Dahran, the original agreement for which having been made in 1951 and would expire in four months, with a provision for a five-year renewal.

In Berlin, it was reported that a U.S. Army private had been released from four years of Russian captivity this date and turned over to Army authorities in East Berlin. He had escaped with two other privates on December 4, 1951 from a West Berlin guardhouse and was now being held to face charges of being AWOL, stealing money and assaulting a German cabdriver three days after the escape. East German Communist authorities had said that the three had sought political asylum, but Austrian prisoners returning from Russian labor camps the previous June had said that they had seen the released private in a Soviet camp and said that he had told them that the Soviets had arrested him in Berlin in 1951. The Austrians said that he had asked them with tears in his eyes to inform U.S. authorities that he was being held at a particular camp in Eastern European Russia and was ill at the time but had been forced to work in the woods by the Russians. One of the men who had escaped with him had returned from East Germany in June, 1952, and had been court-martialed, given a dishonorable discharge and sentenced to five years in prison, while the other private had not been heard from since his flight. The man who had earlier returned and been court-martialed said that the prisoners had been confined, accused of being spies and threatened with being sent to Siberia, after they had signed defection statements on the promise of a Soviet officer that they would be released.

In London, the House of Commons ordered Prime Minister Anthony Eden's Government the previous night to draft a bill abolishing the death penalty in Britain, with the Prime Minister having indicated that he hoped the deputies would change their minds when voting time came. The House had voted 293 to 262 to direct the Government to introduce the legislation to remove capital punishment from the statutes either permanently or for some specified period of trial to allow reconsideration. Cheers erupted in the chamber when the vote was announced, and women in the public galleries excitedly waved their arms. Prime Minister Eden had urged retention of the death penalty, but assured the House that there would be "no undue delay" in introduction of the voted legislation, adding, however, that the Government would "make a considered statement of the consequences" of abolition. Three young condemned killers were awaiting hanging, the only form of capital punishment in Britain, and it was understood that no death penalties would be carried out before the abolition legislation would be introduced, with the sentences of those three men presumably to be commuted to life imprisonment. The pro-Labor Daily Mirror and the Laborite Daily Herald approved of the move, while the Conservative Daily Telegraph disapproved. The Government had expected to win the vote by a small margin, but 37 members of the Conservative majority and four Liberals had joined the nearly solid Labor opposition to comprise the final tally. It could be many months before the death penalty was officially abolished, as the present parliamentary program was so heavy that the Cabinet might not draft a bill for several months, and the House of Lords could delay action for additional months, even after a vote in Commons. There had been efforts for 150 years to abolish the death penalty in Britain. Early in the 19th Century, at the time of the Industrial Revolution, the "bloody code" provided hanging for 220 offenses, many of which were relatively trivial, and mass public hangings had been occasions for general merriment, drunkenness and licentiousness. The criminal code had been revised through the years and public hangings had ceased about the middle of the 19th Century. (To avoid confusion, the above-linked BBC documentary suggests inchoately that the U.S. Supreme Court first temporarily suspended the death penalty in 1972, and then reinstated it in 1976, without bothering to explain that the Court did not reverse itself in the interim, as simplistically implied, but found in 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia, that the Georgia Legislature had, since the 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia, enacted statutes to provide for "special circumstances" to circumscribe the jury's ability to implement the death penalty, eliminating the arbitrariness which the Court had found as the basis for its ruling in Furman that the death penalty, as then being implemented, violated due process and the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court thus did not reverse itself but carefully distinguished the two cases based on the intervening legislation, designed to eliminate the arbitrary imposition of the penalty. It should also be noted that under the American system, unlike the British system, the Federal government could not abolish the death penalty except for Federal offenses, the Congress having no power over state-enacted crime and punishment, as at the Federal level, only the courts have authority to assess the constitutionality of the death penalty or of its particular manner of implementation among the states.)

In Thomasville, Ga., the President played golf this date for the first time since his September 24 heart attack and shot a one over par six on the first hole. He said on the first tee, despite a misting rain, that he had been looking forward to returning to the game. He had played golf just a day prior to his heart attack in Denver, and since the heart attack, his doctors had restricted him to putting and some off-course practice with his iron shots. He hit three balls off the first tee, two down the middle of the fairway about 200 yards and the third about the same distance, but off to the left of the fairway. He was presently vacationing for about a week on the plantation of Secretary of the Treasury George Humphrey. He played this date with press secretary James Hagerty, the president of the Glen Arven Club where he was playing, a Thomasville automobile supply dealer, and the club pro. He used an electric golf cart to get around, as he had frequently done prior to his attack. There was no indication of how many holes he would play. Just before beginning, he had turned to the club pro and said with a grin that they ought to provide a handicap according to whether members of the foursome had suffered a coronary and asked the pro whether he had ever had one, to which he replied that he had not—then inexplicably pulled out a knife and ordered the President to kneel or face sudden death on the 18th hole.

In Tracy, Calif., it was reported that one of the Strategic Air Command's swept-wing intercontinental B-52 jet bombers had exploded during flight the previous day, with three of its eight crewmen killed and one missing, the other four having parachuted to safety. It was the first crash of a B-52, able to carry nuclear weapons. The plane had been on a training mission and one of the four survivors said that there had been an explosion aboard when they were over Sacramento, knocking out their intercom system, followed a few minutes later by a second explosion, at which point he had bailed out at 32,000 feet. The Air Force said that it had caught fire and exploded in flight, offering no explanation.

In Asheville, N.C., it was reported that the Buncombe County sheriff's department this date was investigating the possibility of a burglary in connection with the deaths of two persons in the Oakley section, one of those persons having died from wounds from two bullets fired by a .38-caliber revolver, and the other found dead in a partially-filled bathtub, with an autopsy being performed to determine the cause of death in the latter case. The woman's husband was quoted by officers as saying he found the man who had died of the gunshot wounds in his wife's bedroom when he arrived home around midnight and had shot him in self-defense, when the man approached him with a club in his hand. He was being questioned in the Buncombe County jail during the morning and no charge had been filed against him. The sheriff said he was investigating the possibility of burglary on the part of the man who had been killed, as silverware and other valuables had been wrapped and deposited on the front porch of the house and the deceased had been in his stocking feet, with shoes being found near the kitchen door, which was ajar, without evidence of forcible entry. The husband said that he had not seen his wife in their bed after shooting the man, had then gone across the street to the home of a neighbor to awaken him, telling him what had happened and expressing the fear that something had happened to his wife, the neighbor then having accompanied the man back to the house where the neighbor first discovered the wife's body in the bathtub, with the coroner noting shortly after arriving on the scene that the water in the bathtub was cool. The sheriff was trying to ascertain whether the wife had died before the shooting or whether the appearance of an intruder or the sound of shots might have frightened her and caused a fatal heart attack, as well as whether the deceased man had been aware that the woman was in the bathtub. The 88-year old mother of the husband was at home but had slept through the entire incident.

Charles Kuralt of The News reports of Charlotte businessman Keith Beaty slated to be paroled on June 10, having been granted parole by the U.S. Parole Board in Washington this date, to be released after serving half of his two-year sentence for a $200,000 tax evasion conviction. He had first been indicted with his brother and a third individual in 1953 for evading tax payments on their taxi, gas and beer businesses. His brother had served 15 months of a three-year sentence and was paroled, while the indictment against the third man had been dismissed recently after never being brought to trial. Mr. Beaty became eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence, which had been completed the previous week. He had also paid $20,000 in fines and more than $6,700 in court costs, but still faced the Government's claim for unpaid taxes, pending in Tax Court.

Donald MacDonald of The News tells of a mother, who was observing her child board a Pineville school bus, saving at least four children from serious injury early this date when a truck knocked an automobile into a line of youngsters standing at a bus stop, with no one being seriously injured, although the mother had suffered a wrenched back. County Police praised the woman for her efforts in jerking and pushing the children out of the path of the car. She had been unable to talk with a reporter during the morning as she was still suffering from shock. Officers reconstructed the accident for the newspaper.

Dick Young of The News tells of Park Road residents this date girding for a battle against too much widening of their street, prepared to attend a City Council meeting on February 29 where they would make their case.

In Dallas, Tex., a judge was deliberating whether or not to grant an injunction sought by a fur company against a hamburger establishment next door, based on the claim that mink and other furs would absorb onion odors and be hard to sell. A witness for the plaintiffs, the credit manager for a jewelry firm, had testified the previous day that when the hamburger establishment was next door to his firm, the jewelry store took on a definite onion odor. Another witness, a fur expert and vice-president of Neiman-Marcus Co., testified that furs were sensitive to odors and that it would be hard to sell a fur with an odor. The judge said that the court would take judicial notice of the fact that onions had odors, and the case was continued for further furry testimony this date. Parenthetically, the judge in the case was the brother of Dallas Mayor Robert L. Thornton, who served from 1953 to 1961, and for whom the R. L. Thornton Freeway was named, a sign for an entrance to which was in Dealey Plaza for decades, as it was in November, 1963, just ahead of the Stemmons Freeway sign. Mayor Thornton was praised by both President Kennedy and NAACP executive secretary Roy Wilkins in 1961, even if the latter found excessive gradualism, for encouraging and achieving peaceful desegregation of the Dallas public schools, which had taken place that year, albeit actually occurring four months after his mayoralty, while Earle Cabell was Mayor. Apparently, Mr. Thornton was later confused by some with his brother, who reportedly had been a prominent member of the Klan in Dallas in the 1920's, with no evidence that Mayor Thornton ever had any association with the bedsheet Bonzos—though Klan membership by people active in politics in the early to mid 1920's was not always that which it appeared by reference to night-riding violence, as in the well-known case of later Alabama Senator and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, one of the firmest and most consistent civil libertarians ever to serve on the Court. That is not to say that Mayor Thornton was necessarily a bastion of liberalism, but, in those times, if you were alive and conscious of your environs in the South and favored equal rights for all citizens, you took what you could get and ran with it. (It might be noted ironically—or, perhaps, not so, given the power of media presentations to viewers of all stripes within a community, sometimes producing a reactionary effect—, the elderly gentleman speaking insistently against violence and for obedience to the law in Dallas, at the 15:40 mark of the above-linked "Dallas at the Crossroads" from mid-1961, is sitting either on or somewhere above, even if that position is difficult by perspective to visualize, the triple overpass in Dealey Plaza, with R. L. Thornton-Stemmons Freeway visible in the background, as confirmed by the presence, slightly below the speaker's immediate background, of the distinctive art-deco bridge accouterments adorning the railroad overpass, two distinctive concrete posts, still extant, on either side of the highway below, the raised freeway appearing to his immediate rear having obviously since been widened by a lane, chopping off the top portions of the outer supports, and, further back, a sign for Earl Hayes Chevrolet Company Trucks, the location of which was at Commerce Street and Industrial Blvd. Was he sitting on a ledge atop the old Dallas County Criminal Courts Building at Main and Houston Streets, or perhaps the castle-like, cone-topped "Old Red" on the other side of Main, with the angle of the never-blinking camera obscuring the intervening Plaza below?)

In Ashland, Ky., thieves and "cheaters" had prompted city officials to abandon "courtesy fine-o-meters" for overtime parking, removing the red boxes from 62 locations where they had been installed eight months earlier as a convenience to drivers, permitting them to place a quarter in an envelope to be dropped into the box within an hour after being cited with a parking ticket, with the fine increasing to a dollar after an hour. City officials said that many of the boxes had been robbed and some motorists had parked all day for one 25-cent fine.

Beginning the following Monday, the News would present a six-part series titled "Teen-Age Rebels", to appear on the editorial page, written by Joseph Whitney, author of the "Mirror of Your Mind" column, which appeared daily in the newspaper. The series would deal with problems facing teenagers from puberty to adulthood, and their parents, with the first article examining "The Beginnings of Rebellion", at the beginning of manhood and womanhood, the last in the series to treat of the "young adult" period when "Teen-Agers Face the Future".

On the editorial page, "Civic Progress: Delay Can Be Costly" finds that delay had become the expected and predictable complication wherever new policies were concerned in the city, the most glaring recent example of it being the endless postponements in the adoption of the subdivision control ordinance.

Enabling legislation had been passed for it in 1955 and municipal officials had been trying to work out the details for longer than they wanted to remember, with public hearings on the City-County Planning Commission proposal having been pending for a month or more. After delaying action on February 8, the City Council had been ready to vote on February 15, but Bar Association representatives objected, requesting four additional weeks to study the proposed ordinance because of certain "irregularities" which it might contain. Members of the Council had complained briefly but agreed to postpone the matter until February 29.

Meanwhile, certain projects were moving forward in an effort to beat the effectiveness of the ordinance.

It finds that the ordinance was sound in principle, and that changes suggested by the Bar Association could have been handled by way of subsequent amendments, rather than postponing the whole ordinance. It finds that the continuing delay could become a block to civic progress.

"Richard Nixon: From the Reds to Race" finds that supporters of the Vice-President who wanted to give him a leg up for the presidential nomination in the event that the President chose not to run again, were seeking to convince independent voters that he had matured in his role as Vice-President, learning to avoid the partisan excesses and stirring of hysteria which he had promoted in the 1952 and 1954 campaigns, having absorbed some of the dignity and stature of the President, thus being qualified to replace him.

The piece finds it not so, examining his Lincoln Day speech in New York recently, in which he had thrust the race issue even deeper into the political campaign, suggesting the Brown v. Board of Education decision as an instrument of Republican Party policy, using the issue as bait to attract the pivotal black vote in urban areas.

It suggests that it might be shrewd politics, as the Vice-President was adept at practicing, recognizing the opportunity to widen the gulf between North and South on that issue within the Democratic Party, but finds that he would have better left it to the attention of Governor Averell Harriman of New York. It points out that the President had spurned talk of coercion and force as methods of implementing desegregation and had asserted the need to keep the Court removed from all aspects of politics, while Adlai Stevenson had said the same thing with detail. It finds the President and Mr. Stevenson the voices of reason and recognition of the great potential of the race issue as a means of national division and hysteria.

Mr. Nixon was widely recognized as the President's political spokesman, and if that were true, it suggests that the President should repudiate the Lincoln Day speech, that he had been called on to reverse the Vice-President previously, notably during the threatening crisis in Indo-China in the spring of 1954, when Mr. Nixon had suggested to a meeting of newspaper editors in Washington that the U.S. might introduce ground troops if the Chinese Communists moved into Indo-China.

It concludes that Mr. Nixon had not changed, that he had merely "jumped from the Red issue to the race issue."

"A Few Arresting Officers, Please" finds discouraging the fact that no arrests had been made according to news accounts of the fights at recent school athletic events, both in Charlotte and elsewhere. A gang fight on Independence Square, it suggests, would not produce such leniency on the part of law enforcement and the difference between preserving the peace in midtown and preserving it in a school gymnasium escaped it, as both were public brawls and threatened the public safety.

It advocates the arrest and conviction of "young hoodlums" who insisted on carrying inter-school rivalries to violent extremes, suggests that tolerance, while laudable, also could be carried to extremes.

"Down with the Do-Nothing Cross-Arms" finds the request of the City Council for placing lighted safety gates at the W. 5th Street railroad crossing to have likely been one of its easiest decisions in some time, as there had been six auto-train collisions, three involving injuries, occurring at that crossing in the previous five years, with a traffic volume of nearly 4,000 vehicles per day and increasing. The Council only had to prod Southern Railway into putting up adequate warning signals.

It also regards the 16th Street crossing as a hazard which required attention, as there had been at least one death at that location.

It finds that the wooden cross-arms in general were a bit outdated for a modern city, as they did not do anything, in terms of lighting or making a sound, not even reflecting headlights, just standing there with their arms crossed, complacently.

"Is Leap Year a New Deal Plot?" finds that Ambrose Bierce had been correct in saying that luxuries were always masquerading as necessities, suggests that the nation's most lavish luxury at present was leap year. The Tax Foundation, Inc., expert worriers about such things as the Government "Money-Go-Round", had publicly viewed leap year with alarm, having taken painful note, in its Tax Outlook, of the fact that several Government departments and agencies "were careful to specify that their appropriations demands included 'one extra day's pay required in Leap Year.'" It had found that in one case, the extra day's pay amounted to $12,566, and in another, $1,800, while in a third, $1,500. Even the Capitol's Botanic Gardens had requested $770 under "personal service increases" for the extra day.

It finds that the Administration had shirked its duty by not demanding that the New Deal-Fair Deal calendar be replaced by a rock-ribbed conservative calendar, "with no boondoggle nonsense like extra paydays every four years."

A piece from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, titled "Mr. Bell's Bell", finds it a good omen that the Bell Laboratories were thinking about bringing out a new telephone bell with a mellow tone, resembling that of a clarinet, that there were already available a certain variety of bells but that even the mildest sounding one was peremptory, breaking the silence with something of a shock and continuing to ring with such an authoritative tone that most people could not ignore the call even when they wanted to do so.

It says that what was wanted was a bell with a tentative air about it, whether it sounded like a clarinet or a vibraphone being of no concern, but that if it sounded as a clarinet, then it would prefer a Benny Goodman type rather than a Johnny Dodds type, the latter being a little shrill for its taste, even when not connected with a telephone. What it regards as most important was that it should ring, "not like an angry neighbor determined to get in at all costs, but like a thoughtful friend who will tiptoe quietly away if he's not wanted. There will be a bell among bells, and we do mean Alexander Graham."

Drew Pearson tells of the Superior Oil Co., which had donated the controversial $2,500 campaign contribution to Senator Francis Case of South Dakota, which he had refused, having wasted no time in trying to reap windfall profits following passage of the natural gas deregulation bill by the Senate on February 6, still awaiting the President's veto or signature. Two days after the Senate had voted, a new firm, backed by Texas oil millionaire Clint Murchison, the Coastal Transmission Co., had filed an application with the Federal Power Commission seeking permission to build a pipeline from the Gulf Coast to Texas to the Mississippi River in Louisiana. Mr. Murchison had been a heavy campaign contributor to various Senators who had voted for the bill. The Murchison firm planned to pay Superior Oil and other producers a price of between 16 and 18 cents per thousand cubic feet for natural gas, about 20 percent higher than that called for by other contracts recently signed in the Gulf Coast area. Such an increase would normally be blocked by the FPC as unfair to consumers, but the deregulation bill had removed producers' prices from FPC jurisdiction, allowing producers to charge whatever they wanted. Potential gainers from the 20 percent increase were Shell Oil Co., Gulf Oil Corp., Richardson & Bass, the Atlantic Refining Co., the Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp. and Superior Oil, whose president, Howard Keck, had sent the campaign contribution to Senator Case via a lobbyist from Nebraska. The gas which Coastal Transmission planned to purchase from those producers at a 20 percent markup would be delivered in Louisiana to the new Houston Gas & Oil Corp., and from there, would be piped to Florida for sale to consumers.

Mr. Pearson suggests that it might be of interest to Florida Senators George Smathers and Spessard Holland, both of whom had voted for the deregulation bill, and would be of much greater interest to their constituents who would end up paying higher gas rates. He says that other Senators could be embarrassed also, as under the escalator clauses in almost all of the natural gas contracts, any price increase in the Gulf Coast gas fields would eventually be spread across the board and would change all existing price arrangements between pipelines and producers in that same area. Producers which currently had contracts with Texas Gulf Coast producers included Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., selling gas in the Carolinas, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York. Nevertheless, Senators Strom Thurmond and Olin Johnston of South Carolina, Kerr Scott of North Carolina, and Edward Martin of Pennsylvania had all voted, strangely, for the natural gas bill, while Senator Alexander Smith of New Jersey had remained in Brazil during the vote and so escaped going on record.

The Tennessee Gas Transmission Co. and the Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. had also bought their gas on the Texas Gulf Coast, and had released it in the backyards of Senators John W. Bricker of Ohio, Martin of Pennsylvania, John Butler of Maryland, James Beall of Maryland, Frederick Payne of Maine, Ralph Flanders of Vermont, Norris Cotton of New Hampshire, Styles Bridges of New Hampshire and Leverett Saltonstall of Massachusetts.

Doris Fleeson, at Timberline Lodge, Ore., discusses the presidential campaign of Adlai Stevenson, tells of the candidate and members of his party, riding in a snow cat, which had turned over three times and plunged into a 35-foot crevice, with no one hurt in the accident and having to walk back to the snow-banked lodge. Nevertheless, the campaign aides saw the vacation as welcome relief from the merciless pressure for a week regarding whether Mr. Stevenson could be relied on to provide the Federal intervention in the South which black leaders appeared to desire, while he had refused to be moved from his position of moderation, saying that he would not introduce Federal troops to enforce desegregation for concern that it would only exacerbate the already tense situation, making just solutions on both sides impossible.

He had said recently that it was "reason alone that will determine our continuous rate of progress." An attack by NAACP executive secretary Roy Wilkins did not sway him from his position, with Mr. Stevenson replying that he had never suggested gradualism as imputed to him by Mr. Wilkins, saying: "Claiming rights does not necessarily secure them. That is our problem."

Campaign aides believed the candidate was playing the role of statesman and that he would ultimately gain by it, and that, in any event, they could not change his position.

A few weeks earlier, Mr. Stevenson had been convinced that moderates on both sides were in control, that neither anxious black leaders nor discredited Dixiecrats would be able to lead on the issue of desegregation. But now passions were rising rapidly and he was particularly distressed about the interposition movement in Virginia, lending its prestige to that theory, as well as being surprised that some black leaders whose trust he thought he had were now exhibiting distrust.

Ms. Fleeson observes that he was not so detached personally as his calm statements made it seem, that he was angry about some press accounts and disgusted at the timidity of some politicians who battled vigorously in private on the basis of what he believed was expediency or ignorance.

But after the snow cat accident, the candidate was exuberant, brushed off a heavy coating of snow from his parka and showed a schoolboy's triumph over his successful struggle back to the lodge.

Robert C. Ruark, in Sydney, Australia, tells of Nat King Cole being popular in the country, having performed in two shows per day attended by 15,000 people at three dollars per ticket and no seats available on weekends, bringing in 45,000 "worshipers" with an extra show. He had not seen anything like the reception for Mr. Cole since the kids had gone mad over Frank Sinatra. "The moans and oohs and giggles and squeaks sound like a jungle full of tree frogs. It needs cops to get him in and cart him out and his record sales caper as crazily as a dicky heart chart."

One could not turn on the radio without hearing his songs, just as it had been for singer Johnny Ray, "who wept and wailed his way to riches" when he had been in Australia, as well with other "semi-indistinguished American" recording artists. He finds that Aussies either loved entertainers madly or ignored them entirely, but if they loved the person, they would knock down the door to pay to get at him.

Meanwhile, faith-healer Oral Roberts, who had made a fortune in America, had been literally crucified by the press and public in Australia, having left recently with a $90,000 net loss for the trip, after being hooted in both Melbourne and Sydney. "And this is a big, handsome guy with salvation in his soul and healing in his hand. He said nobody would buy it."

Mr. Ruark cannot explain what the Australian liked and did not like, finds that Mr. Sinatra had been singing better than ever, before the Aussies were cool to him while going completely mad over Mr. Cole. Fats Waller had lived on as a practical deity in Australia years after his death and was being referred to in the present tense on the radio. Bob Hope had laid an enormous egg, but following him would be some unknown who would cram the aisles.

He thinks that the spontaneity of acceptance was more than any other place in the world, as the Aussies bought books with almost a desperate eagerness, just as they attended motion pictures and purchased records and flocked to beaches and other resorts.

Monday night was fight night and all of the husbands attended. Saturdays and holidays were racing days and husbands, as well as some of the wives, attended those.

Aussies made a lot of money quite easily and were willing to pay for pleasure. One could not figure the Aussie as a reader, but he read the daily papers more closely than any other national in the world, bought a large amount of books and magazines, and the Woman's Weekly sold nearly a million copies per week, as a class publication in a country of considerably less than ten million people.

A letter writer responds to letters written by a particular letter writer from Pittsboro, saying that he enjoyed reading those letters, finding the writer intelligent and expressing his ideas clearly and vigorously with great style, as well as sincerity. He responds particularly to a letter of February 10, in which the writer had responded to what he had perceived as confused and contradictory thinking and conduct of supposedly intelligent people, and this writer seeks to provide him that comprehension, suggesting that it was the writer who had been confused and contradictory when becoming concerned with a subject to which he reacted emotionally rather than with reason. The writer says that racial prejudice, which was nothing more than emotional reaction, was found among intelligent people, that sometimes intelligent people would recognize their own prejudice and admit it, but finds it rare. He says it was implied that the country would be vassals of the Pope if there were a president of Catholic faith, an emotional reaction, and it was said that Jews were crafty by nature and lacked human qualities, which he says was also an emotional reaction. It was also thought, particularly in the South, that all blacks were inferior and not fit for anything except servile status in the society, which he regards as more abject emotional reaction. The previous writer had said that the riots at the University of Alabama, in response to the admission of the first black student, Autherine Lucy, were deplorable but that the reports on them would make worse "an ugly situation", seeming to say that those who most deplored racial animosity "generally know nothing about the disease" and that their concern for "the other fellows' problem" was a "response to an impulse of general cussedness", that there was trouble in store for the South because "busybodies from outside" were trying "to take over our social and civil liberties," which this writer regards as "nonsense". He says that the riots at the University of Alabama had been deplorable, presenting an intolerable situation, rule by "mobocracy", which could not go unchallenged. He regards the attitude of the prior writer as one of laissez-faire which would not result in bringing quiet to the campus so that any qualified citizen could study there in peace and in full enjoyment of civil rights. He says that those who favored civil rights were not "busybodies from outside" but "Southerners by birth and by choice; we are now a thorn in the side of the South, as it were, but we, too, speak for the South; and we represent its conscience." He disputes the previous writer that the Supreme Court had acted outside its function and authority in Brown v. Board of Education, suggests that the Court had acted within its function and authority when, in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, had found the separate-but-equal doctrine constitutional, and so necessarily acted within its function and authority when it adjudged that doctrine no longer to be constitutional. Slavery had been an indefensible affront to humanity, just as segregation and discrimination, "even if the national conscience were aroused against it by inferior motivation rather than by true indignation at the enormity of its horror." He says that every American citizen, including blacks, should have first-class citizenship, lest the nation be headed for quick dissolution, that a group could not be held in an inferior status without holding everyone down, that Southerners could not be complacent about their attitude toward blacks. He urges looking upon fellow citizens who, by chance of birth, had black skins and were being denied first-class citizenship, with the Golden Rule in mind and to avoid maudlin sympathy but rather to develop true compassion. "Exercise as you will your personal choice as to whom you would choose for friends and with whom you would be intimate. Maintain for yourself, personality, any racial identity you think you have, if you wish; and by all means, in private life do as you want to and as you can. But leave me free, and leave everyone else free. Public life must not be one big country club with a set of highly privileged members, their servants to attend them, and the rest of the world locked out as non-members. We trust God that we are equal in His regard, and we must have equality of citizenship in America."

Framed Edition
[Return to Links
Page by Subject] [Return to Links-Page by Date] [Return to News<i><i><i>—</i></i></i>Framed Edition]
Links-Date Links-Subj.