The Charlotte News
Thursday, March 22, 1956
THREE EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson this date stated that Congressional Democrats would insist upon high-level price supports in the farm bill, which now had to proceed to conference for resolution of the different provisions of the measures passed by the House and Senate. Senator Johnson said that he believed the high price supports would be in the ultimate bill produced by the conference, despite the threat of the President to veto any such bill, as he had indicated his displeasure the previous day at his press conference with the Senate-passed bill earlier in the week. The House version contained lower level price supports, closer to the Administration's proposals, but its two major provisions, passed the prior May, mandated return to rigid price supports on five basic crops and an increase in the minimum support level for dairy products, both of which provisions were opposed by the Administration. House Agriculture Committee chairman Harold Cooley of North Carolina, who would lead the House confreres in the conference, said that he hoped they would reach a compromise by the Easter recess on April 9. Senator Johnson said that he predicted that the revolt which the farmers had shown at the polls in the Minnesota primary on Tuesday, turning out heavily to favor Senator Estes Kefauver over Adlai Stevenson, would extend to every other farm state as well, also indicating that it was the President's responsibility as to whether or not he would veto a bill and that he could exercise that responsibility without threats from Congress.
In the final tally of votes in Minnesota, Senator Kefauver had won seven of nine Congressional districts in the state, capturing 26 of 30 delegates for the convention the following August, with the other four going to Mr. Stevenson. Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, former Secretary of Agriculture under President Truman, who also backed major portions of the Administration's farm program, said in an interview that the Minnesota vote, with thousands of Republicans entering the Democratic primary, showed that the Democrats would carry every state in the farm belt, regardless of who was the nominee. Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, who had joined Democratic Governor Orville Freeman to support Mr. Stevenson, said that the latter's spirits were high and his determination unwavering, despite the defeat, and that his supporters were also unwavering, noting that both candidates supported price supports higher than those favored by the Administration and that the large vote in the Democratic primary had been a "stunning repudiation of the Eisenhower-Benson farm fiasco." He said that Mr. Stevenson was the Democratic candidate "most feared" by Republicans and that if Republicans had not invaded the Democratic primary to embarrass him, he would have won, with the only other possible conclusion having been that "Republicans flocked to the Democratic banner because they are repudiating their own party." Senator George Aiken of Vermont, the chief Senate backer of the Administration's flexible price support program, said that the Minnesota vote had indicated an uprising against a group, rather than the farm program. Senator George Bender of Ohio said that the voters had repudiated the "Humphrey-Freeman leadership", and demonstrated that they had grown tired of Mr. Stevenson's "smart-aleck approach to national and international issues." Senator Herbert Lehman of New York said that he was a little surprised at the margin of victory by Senator Kefauver, but still believed that Mr. Stevenson would be the best qualified man for the presidency and that he would continue to support him. Senator Walter George of Georgia said that the size of the Democratic vote indicated "strong grassroots support" for Democratic farm policies. Senator Edward Thye of Minnesota, who had fought alongside Democrats for a farm bill carrying price supports higher than those of the Administration, said that a presidential veto of the pending measure "would have disastrous results" for the Republican cause in the Midwest. Senator Karl Mundt of South Dakota, another supporter of rigid price supports, said that Mr. Stevenson's defeat was "an expression of support for the country boy from Tennessee rather than the city slicker from Chicago."
In Montgomery, Ala., the defense in the prosecution of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., accused under state law, along with 89 other black citizens, of participating in an illegal boycott by being a leader of the boycott of the municipal buses in protest of their segregated seating by local ordinance, presented testimony this date tending to show mistreatment of black passengers on segregated buses. The witnesses testified that white bus drivers had habitually referred to them as "niggers", ordering them to give up their seats to white passengers and making them stand while seats in the white section remained vacant, in some instances ordering them to board the rear of the bus after paying their fare and then driving off before the black riders could board the bus from the rear. One witness, Mrs. Mary Banks, had said "some drivers act nice and ask white people to get up," but most of the testimony told of a persistent policy of mistreatment of black riders. The defense was expected to conclude its case during this date, with Dr. King to testify as the last witness during the afternoon session. The State, in its cross-examination of the defense witnesses, had elicited that some of the witnesses had attended mass meetings since the boycott had begun on December 5, but had difficulty getting the witnesses to say that they had heard the bus boycott being discussed at those meetings. One witness, Joseph Alford, said that he had attended some of the rallies but that all he knew about the boycott was that which he had read in the newspapers, indicating that he had ceased riding city buses two months prior to the beginning of the boycott. Parenthetically, a picture of the Mayor of Montgomery, W. A. Gayle, appears, showing him adjusting his tie with his right hand while suspiciously having a couple of fingers posed against the tie with his left hand. The previous day, he had testified that his membership in a pro-segregation citizens council was not indicative of any support for violence, which he said he would never support or join an organization which did so. We cannot help but be a little suspicious that his hand gesture had some special significance, which suspicion the photographer and the wire service may have shared, being the reason it appeared on the front page of The News. But, who knows? Maybe he just needed to adjust his tie.
In Raleigh, Governor Luther Hodges said to a press conference this date that there appeared to be "general agreement" among North Carolina legislators with whom he had conferred in recent days regarding the course the state ought take anent school desegregation, indicating that one or two more groups of legislators would meet with him at the executive mansion during the remainder of the week after several groups of them had been conferring with him and members of the State Advisory Committee on Education for the previous several days. The Governor and the Committee hoped to issue a report on its recommendations sometime in the first ten days of April. The Governor said that he had not encountered any particular resistance to the holding of a special session of the Legislature to deal with the issue. The Committee had not disclosed what it was considering, but the Governor had said that a plan similar to that in Virginia was under study, the Virginia plan being to provide for tuition grants or transfers to students objecting to attendance of integrated schools, the Virginia plan requiring that the Virginia State Constitution be amended to allow public funding of private schools. The Governor said that he had no opinion as to when a special session would be held, that there were "many angles" to be studied, but that it probably would be called during the summer.
The Governor also stated that he would open his re-election campaign headquarters in Raleigh after Easter Monday, and that there was no state tax money being used in support of his candidacy. He said he had scheduled 49 speaking engagements before learning that he would face opposition in the Democratic primary, writing each of the 49 organizations that he was a candidate and that he did not plan to make a political talk, but offered to cancel the engagement. He said that 39 had replied and none had desired the cancellation.
Also in Raleigh, the secretary of the State Board of Elections conferred this date with State Attorney General W. B. Rodman on what to do about Kidd Brewer, who had announced the previous day his withdrawal as a candidate for lieutenant governor based on his doctor's recommendation, after having announced his entry to the race the prior Friday. The withdrawal presented a problem because Mr. Brewer had asked that his name be taken off the ballot, some 1.3 million of the two million of which had already been printed, and the secretary was advised that if his name appeared on some of the ballots, it had to be on all of them. Thus the question for Mr. Rodman was what would be done about the potential votes which Mr. Brewer would receive, indicating that he thought that they probably would have to be counted, in figuring out whether one of the three other candidates would receive a majority or whether a runoff primary would be necessary.
In Asheville, N.C., a resolution calling for a 25 percent pay increase for North Carolina teachers was to be presented during the afternoon before the North Carolina Education Association resolutions committee, the proposed resolution omitting any reference to teachers staying out of school the following fall if the pay raise were not approved, as had been proposed by the Canton unit of the NCEA. Of the responding three-quarters of the 125 units polled on the matter, 80 percent approved the 25 percent pay increase while 20 percent of the responding units voted to stay out of school the following fall if the pay demands were not met. A representative of the Canton unit said that the resolution was being proposed on the basis that there would be a special session of the Legislature during the summer. Segregation, the hottest issue in the South, was expected to receive little attention during the three-day convention, with only the barest mention of it having been made by the resolutions committee, in its proposed platform, the committee having said that the Association should go on record as believing that "our present system of free public school is an indispensable foundation for our democratic way of life." Parenthetically, we have to wonder how the Canton teachers or their students attended school at all amid the sulphuric odor pervading the town from the paper mill.
The D.C. Court of Appeals this date told the Civil Aeronautics Board to provide the Greensboro-High Point Airport Authority "a plain answer" to its complaint that it was being discriminated against in airline routes, the dispute chiefly involving a CAB order to split one route of Eastern Air Lines at Charlotte, instead of at Greensboro-High Point, with the latter airport authority contending that Charlotte had been unduly favored by the Board and that Greensboro-High Point had been discriminated against.
In Flagstaff, Ariz., a story reports that when tourists descended by mule to the isolated canyon of the Havasupai Indians during the summer, they would see a strange set of travel posters which read: "Join up—see the world," and "Uncle Sam wants you!" The trail, leading some 70 miles from the nearest paved road, was the only way in or out of that canyon and so it served as a means of recruiting for the Navy. A veteran recruiter said that he had seen a picture of the 250-man tribe living at the bottom of the canyon near the Utah border along the Colorado River, that it seemed to him that they were pretty husky and did not appear to have much to do, and so he believed they had to be told about the opportunities available for them in the service. He and another recruiter went to visit the chief of the tribe, which consisted of peaceful farmers. The two recruiters decided to soften up the Indians by participating in a game of football, which was played on a field covered with eight inches of sand. The top sergeant said that, to their regret, the Indians had never called timeout and had never sent in substitutes, and that the military men were hurting by the end of the game. A lot of the members of the tribe had told them that they would like to join but had too many family responsibilities and so would await the draft. The two recruiters had heard that before and so tacked up the posters along the trail and handed out self-addressed postcards, departing the previous week. The sergeant said that they were still waiting as of this date for any replies, but that he would be around for several years and had learned that one had to be patient in recruiting.
In Santa Monica, Calif., a housewife obtained a divorce on the ground that when she questioned her husband about lipstick on his shirt, he had spanked her with a shoe, testifying that when her husband returned home from a party and she had asked him to explain the lipstick, he had said: "If you're going to ask childish questions, I'll treat you as a child," then paddled her. He may have seen "Adam's Rib" on the late show recently and took too much to heart a scene which in a movie is funny but when transposed into reality becomes only degradation and humiliation for the recipient, the husband in this instance appearing to have behaved as an adolescent toward his wife, who only wanted to know where the bastard got the lipstick on his shirt. Of course, he may have been a little embarrassed if he got it at a Klan meeting as part of one of their ritualistic initiation rites.
Not on the front page, in the NCAA basketball tournament, the national semifinals took place in Evanston, Ill., this night, with defending national champion, undefeated and top-ranked San Francisco easily defeating SMU 86 to 68, and Iowa beating Temple 83 to 76. San Francisco, with a 54-game winning streak extending from the prior season, would thus take on Iowa, ranked fourth in the final Associated Press poll of the previous week, for the national championship the following night.
On the editorial page, "'Moderation' Is a Two-Way Street" finds that in recent months, no word had developed such varied meanings as "moderation". As applied to the segregation dilemma in the South, it had taken on many meanings, which it likes to assume implied a certain temperateness, calmness and fair-minded reasonableness.
It urges reducing the fog and keeping shared experience in an unclouded state, finds that when the President at his press conference the previous day had appealed for "moderation", he appeared to be speaking directly to the South, indicating that it was incumbent upon Southerners to show progress in good race relations.
It endorses that sentiment, but also finds that moderation was applicable to everyone across all sections and segments of the society, that not only Southerners ought to practice moderation, but also Northerners, that not only whites, but also blacks, that if Southern communities were urged to be moderate, then so should the Federal Government, including the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts.
It finds that the desegregation issue required time and flexibility, that speed of integration was not the heart of the controversy and that Federal authorities or militant organizations which viewed it that way defeated their own aims and threatened violence to interracial good will developed slowly through many years.
"It is perfectly true that moderation—together with an exchange of views by representative whites and Negroes, community by community—can heal today's open social wounds. But moderation is a two-way street."
"Adlai & Estes: It Was a Deep Snow" comments on the surprise victory in the Minnesota primary on Tuesday by Senator Estes Kefauver over Adlai Stevenson, in their first head-to-head match-up in the primary season. It finds that the lamest argument advanced by the Stevenson supporters was that Republicans had crossed party lines to vote for Senator Kefauver, that even if that had been true, it was inconsequential. It suggests that the potent fact was that Mr. Stevenson, supported by virtually all of the Minnesota state party organization, with plenty of funding and his own hard work in that primary, plus the honor of his previous 1952 nomination, had been soundly beaten by a man who matched him only in the hard work department.
It finds that, generally, parallels could be drawn between Mr. Stevenson's urbane eloquence, his reasoned statements and balanced arguments, and the folksiness, blunt attacks on the Republicans and simple promises of 100 percent parity for small farmers of Senator Kefauver. The people of Minnesota had liked Senator Kefauver better than they had Mr. Stevenson, raising the same dilemma which the Democrats had faced in 1952, when Senator Kefauver went to the convention with victories in 15 of the 18 primaries held that year, but ultimately without nomination to either the presidency or the vice-presidency.
It finds that the Minnesota victory of the Senator had removed the illusion that Mr. Stevenson was the "front runner" and suggested that he might not be running at all. It asserts that it would only deepen the antipathy of the party leaders which had blocked the nomination of Senator Kefauver in 1952, as the Senator, as he had four years earlier, attacked the state party organization in Minnesota. But, it finds, that if the party leaders were not pleased with Senator Kefauver, they would be much less so with Mr. Stevenson, as they had believed he could win.
It suggests that the result pointed to a wide open convention in which a Southern bloc, if formed, could bring great pressure on the platform and the choice of the nominee, but that, if they could not have their own choice, Southerners would prefer a battered Stevenson to a victorious Kefauver. "Beyond that the crystal ball is obscured by the deep snow that buried prophets and predictions in Minnesota."
Bob—Bob was to blame, for stirring up all the young farm children, whose parents belonged to the Farmer-Labor Party, socialists all, with his guitar playing.
"Rep. Walter and a Vigilante's Voice" finds that Representative Francis Walter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the HUAC subcommittee which had held hearings in Charlotte the prior week, had assumed too much in his gratuitous attack on James Gilliland, the Warren County solicitor who had acted as counsel for most of the witnesses before the subcommittee, those who had refused to testify for the most part. It points out that as an attorney, he had a perfect right and, to a degree, a duty to respond to the requests that he represent those witnesses, two of whom he had known from college days.
It also finds that by doing so while employed as a solicitor, he subjected himself to the right of the county to fire him if they deemed that to be their duty, which they had not.
It indicates that his counsel was a matter for his own conscience to prescribe and for the witnesses to accept or reject, and that the nation had not established penalties for wrong thinking.
Yet, Mr. Walter had attributed to Mr. Gilliland the refusal of the witnesses he had counseled to testify, asserting the First and Fifth Amendments, and adjudged the witnesses guilty as "charged with being a part of the international conspiracy." He could not substantiate the charge regarding Mr. Gilliland and had no credentials for judging witnesses.
While there was a law, the Smith Act, against participation in a conspiracy to overthrow the Government by force or violence, the guilt of the witnesses was to be determined by judges and juries, and it was up to the Justice Department, which possessed all of the information elicited at the hearing, to charge them if it was believed there was a credible case to be made against them.
It indicates that it held no brief for the witnesses or for the "jolly alacrity" with which Mr. Gilliland had represented them, but also possessed an abiding faith in the nation's system of laws, including the right to have counsel. It finds that there was no place in the system for a vigilante spirit of judgment before proof, as suggested by Mr. Walter's comments, that the conspiracy was the winner when out of fear of it, Americans voluntarily shredded their own rights.
A piece from the London Times, titled "What To Name the Cat", tells of most cat owners being content with naming their cat something which would come easily off the tongue, but with aristocrats, it was otherwise, as prize-winning cats had names beyond the dreams of most cat owners, including Lavengro of Dunesk, Moonrise of Pensford, and Trenton Raffles, not such common alley-cat names as Tibby and Ginger.
The same was true, to a lesser degree, among aristocrats who owned dogs.
It suggests that it probably mattered little to the cats, themselves, "Cruel, but composed and bland,/ Dumb, unscrutable and grand, they carry their names lightly whether these be splendid, excruciating, or just dull. Nor does it matter very much from the point of view of their owners, for whatever we call them they hardly ever come."
Drew Pearson indicates that Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and CIA director Allen Dulles usually functioned so well together personally that most people forgot that they were brothers, with Secretary Dulles being continually in the headlines while his brother was not, as the CIA sought to remain out of the headlines, reporting to the State Department and the Pentagon on the strength of Russia and its satellites, and regarding the danger of war any place in the world.
He indicates that recently the two brothers had an unpublicized clash, coming from a meeting in which Allen told his older brother that he thought he was wrong in making speeches that Russia was losing the cold war, the purported reason why they were changing their tone of late. The Secretary had appeared displeased, but the CIA director continued to reprove him, saying that the speeches had made it appear that the U.S. was not in trouble, when in fact the Russians were making headway and the U.S. was in real trouble. Eventually, the Secretary told his younger brother that his job was to evaluate and report on intelligence, not to advise the Secretary of State regarding his speeches.
He next indicates that both the White House and confirming Senators would do well to take a good look at the law practice of Clarence Davis, Undersecretary of the Interior, before he would be appointed to replace Secretary of Interior Douglas McKay. Mr. Davis was a senior partner in the law firm of Davis, Healy, Davies & Wilson, of Lincoln, Neb., where his name was still on the door and from which he still, according to his partners, received a retainer. When he had been an active partner in the law firm he had handled the affairs of the Consumers Public Power Co., a state agency created by the Nebraska Legislature to handle public power. Since that time, the youngest member of the firm, Richard Wilson, was handling that business, with it being reported that he was receiving some coaching from Mr. Davis on major decisions. That company had received a contract from the Government to set up one of the major nuclear reactors, which might cause a conflict of interest for Mr. Davis.
Doris Fleeson discusses the proposed amendment to the Constitution to reform the electoral college to abandon the individual state-by-state determination to award all electoral votes to the popular vote winner in presidential elections. Liberals of both parties were receiving a study of the present proposals charging that they were plans to gerrymander presidential elections, with the Midwestern and right-wing Republicans, along with Southern Democrats, being the beneficiaries of such a system, forces already in coalition in the Congress, placing effective restraints on social and economic legislation since 1938.
The study, she indicates, had found that the proposed method of counting electoral votes would transfer decisive power to state legislatures, as the votes would be divided by Congressional districts fixed by those legislatures, where Congressional districts had been gerrymandered for time immemorial, such that the controlling party in the individual legislature could, through arrangement of districts based on party affiliation of voters, elect more representatives from a given state than on a fair system of partitioning districts. The result was that the rural voters had, per capita, more power than urban dwellers, continuing, despite the migration of people from farms to the city, accelerated substantially since the beginning of World War II when people had flocked to the cities to obtain much higher paying war-industry jobs.
She points out that a new survey, titled "Rural versus Urban Political Power", by Gordon Baker of the University of California, stated that "in 1955 inequality of legislative representation is solidly entrenched in all but a handful of the 48 states. Most urban areas are discriminated against in at least one house of their state legislature and in many cases in both houses." He also found that interests with greater influence in constituencies with inflated power possessed an advantage over those whose support came from areas which were under-represented.
While liberals in presidential elections since 1932 had been able to elect liberal Presidents, in Congressional races, progress, except during the early New Deal period, had been slowed, until it had now reached a virtual standstill.
The present study being circulated among liberals indicated that Republicans could only hope, under the proposed system, to elect their most conservative members to the presidency, and that among Democrats, the South would be strengthened within the party but its chances of electing a president would be diminished.
She indicates that the obvious result would be to weaken the big-city states at the party conventions and in the general election, a part of the appeal of the electoral reforms to Congressional conservatives, even though adopted by some liberals. Once the amendment was sent to the states and ratified, presidential electoral power would pass to the states and would be completely out of the hands of the Congress.
The study had concluded that while the proposals purported to dilute the influence of voters constituting only a minority of the electorate, in fact they would transfer disproportionate influence to conservatives who were only a minority of voters in one-party states, Republicans in the Midwest and Democrats in the South.
The study being circulated, or Ms. Fleeson, appears to have overlooked the fact that the Constitution, from its inception, had provided under Article II, section 1, clause 2, that each state legislature determines the manner of selection of electors for the President and Vice-President in that state, and so, theoretically, could, in seriatim, institute the plan being proposed in the electoral college reform amendment, the difference, of course, being that to have the procedure for selection of electors mandated in the Constitution and thus no longer left to the state legislatures, would institutionalize the practice in all of the states, the point which the study was actually making regarding indirect "gerrymandering" of presidential elections through state legislative power to formulate Congressional districts within the state—the practice of gerrymandering subsequently to be limited by the constraints set forth in 1962 by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr and in 1964 in Reynolds v. Sims, that "one person, one vote", grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, must ultimately be the prevailing principle in reapportionment of legislative districts at the state level and, as extended in Wesberry v. Sanders in 1964, to redistricting of Congressional representation.
In any event, the actual plan which was receiving the most support in the Senate was for an amendment to provide for proportional allocation of electoral votes based on the popular vote in the state, rather than by Congressional districts, with allocation of the electoral votes among only the top three vote-getters, and the states having the option of providing for selection of electors in the same manner as its Senators and Representatives, that is, by popular vote, which, insofar as Representatives, would entail a district by district election process but statewide for Senators, the legislative selection of Senators having been abolished by the 17th Amendment in 1913 in deference to popular election. Were a state, operating under the proposed amendment, to adopt that latter option, two of its electors would be selected based on the statewide vote and the balance district by district, thus imputing the gerrymander argument, with the number of electors for each state based on its total representation in Congress. But the system would only be an available option to the strict proportional method and would not be mandated under the proposed amendment.
Note that Senator and former Vice-President Alben Barkley of Kentucky favored, in the above-linked debate of March 20, direct vote for the President and Vice-President, and completely abolishing the electoral college as outmoded, probably the most sensible approach, but one also the most likely to be fraught with difficulty in obtaining initial approval of the amendment by two-thirds of each house and then in ratification by three-fourths of the states, as pointed out in answer by Senator Kefauver, shortly to become a candidate for the vice-presidency. Senator and future Vice-President Humphrey had impliedly raised the issue of the gerrymander with Senator Kefauver.
And, of course, the ironically forecasting significance of the colloquy between Senator Kefauver and Senator Albert Gore should not escape attention.
A letter writer says that despite the "shouting, confusion and bitter feelings that have resulted from the Supreme Court's infamous segregation decision and the propaganda barrages of the national press, do-gooders and local ministers association, two points should be getting clearer to the majority of the white people of the South," that there was "no such thing as a little or partial integration" and that the "white people of the South have to let their feelings in this matter be known or suffer the consequences." He says that the Court, in its decision in Brown v. Board of Education, had "clearly disregarded all precedence [sic] and previous legal rulings and made a sociological and political decision and then declared this decision legal." He accuses the Court of usurping the legislative role in so doing and that it should serve as warning to the states that it might render other such decisions "which would invade the rights of sovereign states to handle their own local affairs, thereby establishing an even stronger central government or even a dictatorship." He thinks that if small white and black children were placed together for most of their waking hours in the classrooms and in social functions at school, playing together on the playgrounds, using restrooms, swimming pools, beaches, buses and going to outings at the Coliseum together, "don't you think that a lot of Negro culture is going to rub off on the white children as well as the Negro assuming some of the white culture?" He objects to white taxpayers having to maintain public facilities for black citizens. He regards the local newspapers as pro-integration, especially the Charlotte Observer, with editorials and news items in both newspapers which were "edited and composed to get the readers in a frame of mind to accept integration." He believes that, compared to the newspapers of other Southern towns, Charlotte was becoming an "'Integration Island' in a segregation [sic] South. Primarily as a result of northern owned and controlled newspapers." He goes on quite a bit further defending segregation and condemning integration as vote-hunting by politicians, the result of "pressure tactics" from the NAACP and other groups. He advocates writing state and national legislators, the Governor and especially the local school board members to let them know the writer's feelings. He also advocates registering and voting "for the man who stands for the same thing we do."
That would, presumably, be Adolf Hitler and he is dead.
A letter writer from Forest City says that after reading "100 Things You Should Know about Communism", a person might ask what Communists wanted, to which he delivers the answer: "To dominate your life from the cradle to the grave." He says that Communists planned to obtain control through aggressive war, internal revolution, fraud, trickery, and corruption of public self-confidence, that the way in which a person could tell if another was a Communist was to get them in an argument about the U.S., and the other person would tell of plenty of things wrong with the country and then seek to defend Russia and Communism. He urges voting, after studying the issues and candidates, "but most of all we must vote against anything that gives communism any grounds to grow."
A letter writer thanks the newspaper for its kindness and publicity in publicizing the party for crippled children of Mecklenburg County, held at the Firemen's Hall on March 12, also thanks Chief Joe Whitley and his men of the County Police Department, Chief Donald Charles and Chief Walter Black of the Fire Department and their men, for their kindness and assistance in helping to make the party a success. He also thanks many others, including Mrs. H. P. McAllister of the Mecklenburg Cerebral Palsy Association.
A letter writer comments that the President had decided to run again, without saying how much time he would be able to devote to "the heaviest job as of all times". He finds in Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson a "hot breeze from Texas" seeking to become the Democratic challenger, saying that the country did not need a part-time man in the White House "at this age". (Without saying so, he is obviously referring to the fact that not only had the President suffered a heart attack the prior September but Senator Johnson had also suffered one the prior July 4.) He urges taking the 10th Congressional District around Charlotte back into the Democratic column from Representative Charles Jonas, "where it justly belongs."
A letter writer from Morganton indicates that she had read where a prominent Democratic woman had stated that Congressman Hugh Alexander had stated that women had elected him and probably could elect former Mayor of Charlotte Ben Douglas in the 10th District race, commenting that she believes that women of the Congressional district who had their sons tortured, murdered, maimed in wars for property would think a long time before changing from men who brought peace and prosperity. She says that women of the district would want to keep the man whom they knew stayed on the job, "not gadding about abroad or out of Washington when Congress is in session, the man who has helped the little, neglected taxpayers get something for their money." She believes that man was Charles Raper Jonas and advocates voting for him for another term in Congress.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.