The Charlotte News
Friday, March 9, 1956
FOUR EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that the New York Herald Tribune had said this date that it had learned authoritatively that Vice-President Nixon was being urged by Administration aides and top Republicans not to make any final decision on whether to seek renomination as the vice-presidential candidate before the Republican convention opened on August 20. It said that the purpose was to prevent impairment of the freedom of action of the convention and that the matter of timing had become important because Mr. Nixon had told some close friends that he was considering the possibility of "not being available." The story said, "Mr. Nixon has expressed the feeling of letdown—not specifically with any lack of endorsement by President Eisenhower but because he has been the butt of political attacks without seeing any substantial number of Republicans to his defense." The New York Times said in a Washington dispatch this date that Mr. Nixon had listened calmly, without reply, to suggestions that his political career would be better advanced if he were not to seek renomination as the vice-president, being told, in effect, that a two-term Vice-President stood little, if any, chance of becoming nominated by the Republicans for the presidency in 1960. And, of course, that would all prove quite perspicacious, as the Vice-President would stand down and enter private law practice for the ensuing four years, after which he would not only be nominated but elected to the Presidency in 1960, narrowly defeating Senator John F. Kennedy. Meanwhile, Vice-President Herter would never seek the presidency. And the rest, as they say…
The Senate this date voted to extend until March 31 the life of its four-member special committee investigating the $2,500 campaign contribution offered to Senator Francis Case of South Dakota during the gas deregulation bill debate, an offer which the Senator had rejected and then reported to the full Senate. The action was by voice vote and without debate. Senator Walter George of Georgia had explained that the committee needed extra time to draft its report, the original deadline for which had been March 1, then extended until March 10. The Senate also doubled the funds for the committee, to $20,000. Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson said the previous day that it appeared inappropriate to him for two select committees to be operating at the same time in the same area, the other special committee, consisting of eight members, set to conduct a broad lobbying investigation. There might thus be restraint on that latter group not to start its work until after the first special committee expired, with the second committee then taking up where the first had left off. Senator Johnson told the press during the morning that they were pursuing the matter of an agreement between the Democratic and Republican members of the lobbying committee. Minority Leader William Knowland of California said that he believed there was "ample room" for negotiation of an agreement.
Employment had fallen by 314,000 in February to a total of 62,577,000 because of winter weather and sizable layoffs in the automobile industry, according to the Commerce and Labor Departments. Automotive industry employment had dropped by 85,000 from January and the resulting production cut was reflected in layoffs in industries supplying the automobile companies, including metals and rubber. Unemployment across the nation remained virtually unchanged, at 2,914,000, with unemployment up only 29,000 for the month. Unemployment was 469,000 below that of a year earlier. The joint departmental statement said that most of the persons who had left seasonal jobs had withdrawn from the labor market instead of seeking other employment, and were not counted among the unemployed. Non-farm employment remained in February at a record level for the month, roughly 4 percent above the same time the previous year. The largest recent layoff had been in Indiana, where 8,000 auto assembly line workers had been released for a week, and the second largest was involving 1,600 workers in Michigan. More than two-thirds of the autoworkers currently laid off were in Michigan, 83 percent of those being in the Detroit area, with significant auto industry unemployment in Indiana, Ohio and New York, and some also in Illinois, California and Wisconsin.
In Nicosia, Cypress, British Governor Sir John Harding this date had ordered the deportation of Archbishop Makarios, leader of the Cypriot union-with-Greece movement, and the latter had already left with three other leaders of the movement. All four deportations had been ordered under emergency regulations instituted after the British colony was torn by violence, including bombings and shootings. An official announcement said that the four men had departed under escort for a destination which would be announced later.
In Oxford, Pa., 12 members of one family had been killed the previous night in a fire which destroyed their two-room tar-papered home, with an investigator stating this date that it appeared that it could be foul play, though not stating the cause for the suspicion. The deputy coroner said that a thorough investigation would be made in conjunction with state police and fire officials.
In Lake Lure, N.C., the body of a third youth, 16, had been recovered this date where his two camping companions, ages 19 and 20, had also drowned. The boys had been from Whitney, S.C., disappearing on February 10, prompting one of the most intensive search efforts ever conducted in the state, with hundreds of volunteers, the Civil Air Patrol, rescue organizations and Navy divers from the Charleston Minecraft Base having explored the lake and the surrounding countryside.
Ann Sawyer of The News reports that the Board of County Commissioners this date had temporarily recessed until Monday their investigation of the Welfare Department, after hearing a strong defense of the Department from Juvenile Court Judge Willard Gatling. The two-day hearing thus far had appeared to produce little or no evidence that there was any report of mistreatment to welfare officials by a neighbor of the "stepmother" who had been convicted of assault on the three-year old stepdaughter, who had died the previous Christmas Eve after the home had been investigated and approved by the Welfare Department. Department personnel this date had said that the only notification of any possible neglect of the child had come from a doctor who had said that the little girl had not been returned to him for treatment after suffering a broken leg, but that a caseworker assigned by the Department had checked further into the report and found that the child had been taken to a Mount Holly physician, who had said by telephone that there had been no sign of abuse or neglect of the child. The original doctor said that he had contacted a Department worker after a neighbor of the family had called him. Department workers this date said that the doctor had mentioned that the child had bruises on her body but said that his primary concern appeared to have been regarding the child's broken leg. Much of the testimony at the criminal trial of the stepmother had come before the Board, as well as a statement from Welfare Department superintendent Wallace Kuralt on the Department's work concerning the home of the family, plus conflicting testimony regarding whether the counselor for the Domestic Relations & Juvenile Courts had been told about the mistreatment of the child before the death, and whether the County Police had closed its investigation shortly after the death of the child. On Monday, it was anticipated that the commissioners would hear from individuals who had general complaints about being mistreated or treated with discourtesy by the Department. Commissioner Sam McNinch said that the Board would not listen to complaints pertaining to assistance which people were receiving or hoped to receive from the Department. One woman had told the commissioners this date that she had been mistreated by the Department and that they had "dismissed me like a dog," as she tried to obtain old-age assistance.
A separate story says that the investigation of the Department had few rules and no well-defined procedures, that for the first three hours of the hearing the previous day, anything a witness had heard or thought was admitted into evidence. A statement by the County Attorney had been read at the beginning of the previous day's session by the chairman of the Commission, recommending that the proceeding could be shortened considerably by confining the testimony to facts and circumstances within the personal knowledge of the witness and not permitting hearsay. But the suggestion had practically been ignored, with commissioners on several occasions calling attention to the fact that the hearing was getting away from its purpose. Much of the testimony was simply a rehash of the criminal trial.
In another story, the chairman of the Mecklenburg County Welfare Board had expressed confidence in Mr. Kuralt at the start of the investigation, saying that he was "truly devoted to his work." He said it did not mean that Mr. Kuralt had not made mistakes, that anyone who dealt with a staff of some 75 to 100 people was bound to make mistakes, but that he had observed that Mr. Kuralt had conducted his Department on a very efficient basis.
The stepmother and the father of the child in question, who were sharing a home but were not married, were each given a sentence of 12 months in jail on an adultery charge this date. The stepmother had been sentenced to 2 to 4 years in prison for the previous assault conviction regarding the child. (The woman was not the legal stepmother of the child, therefore, but had been referred to in reports as the "'stepmother'".)
The Northeast, which had been hit by late winter torrential rains, floods, blizzards and chilling winds, was beginning to recover this date as flood waters were receding and snow had ceased to fall, but many persons remained homeless, with many homes having been flooded or being without heat in the blizzard area where the storm had disrupted power lines. At least nine deaths had been attributed to the bad weather, with two in New York State and seven in Canada. Nineteen inches of snow had fallen in Greenville, Me., resulting in a snowpack of 45 inches, with high winds whipping up drifts across all of northern Maine. Power failures had beset the Berkshire area of Massachusetts because of a heavy snowstorm, and freezing rain and sleet covered other parts of Massachusetts, southern New Hampshire and Vermont, with a coating of ice up to 3 inches thick.
In Corona, Calif., singer Kay Starr
had been mailed a police traffic citation charging that she had run a
stop signal on the prior Wednesday. She had been injured when,
according to officers, her automobile had struck another car at an
intersection and knocked it into an orange grove, with police having
quoted her as saying that she had become confused when a passenger in
her car had suggested that she continue straight ahead after she had
started to make a turn at the intersection. She had said that she
braked but had skidded through the stop signal and hit an automobile
occupied by a couple, who suffered minor injuries. She was ordered to
appear in court and was presently in a Beverly Hills hospital, which
continued to report her condition as fair. Her manager said that she
had bruises on her arms, legs and neck, with some scratches, and
would be released from the hospital in a day or two. She had a fender buckle
On the editorial page, "Annexation: Remove the Invisible Line" finds that annexation had to proceed if the Charlotte metropolitan area was to reap the benefits of its destiny in commerce, industry, the arts, education and recreation, that the invisible city limits line did more than create a tax and insurance differential, stopping the fire and garbage trucks and police cars, not allowing for streetlights and causing educational inequities. It divided one community into two groups attacking the same problems and the same goals, but in a wasteful, uncoordinated manner.
It finds that Charlotte and its suburbs could proceed together toward common goals more economically and efficiently than divided by the invisible line.
It concludes that there was more involved in annexation than costs, that there was progress in its best aspects and with ultimate benefits for all, with former Mayor Herbert Baxter, member of the City Council, who had put forward his plan for annexation the previous day, essentially recommending that everyone reason together, a sentiment with which the piece agrees.
"After Coonskin Caps—Duck Blinds?" finds it easy to understand an Asheville highlander's "postal pungency" concerning the State Highway Patrol, given the unpopularity of "revenooers" in the North Carolina hill country, disdain transferred easily to other types of law enforcement.
In a letter to Governor Luther Hodges, Gordon Ramsey had suggested during the week that patrolmen be equipped with coonskin caps and automobiles painted forest green because they had spent so much time "hidden behind bushes", trying to trap "unwary motorists".
It finds the sentiment fair enough, as it was open season on "unwary motorists" anyway, provided they were violators of the law, and that motorists who violated the law were unwary when it came to observing the rights of others, that if reason would not convince motorists to play according to the rules of safety, fear of detection might, that when a motorist violated the law, he deserved to be arrested. It concludes that if it took whammies, coonskin caps or even duck blinds, that was all right, too, as the psychology behind such devices was not new, society having used burglar alarms and plainclothes policemen for years. "Besides, if a motorist doesn't violate the law he has nothing to worry about."
"Soul Saving" tells of Soviet officials having been so impressed by the long speeches at the 20th Party Congress in Moscow that they had ordered them printed in one 900,000-page volume (more probably 900,000 words), with the New York Times having commented that it would be a kind of Nikita Khrushchev version of Mein Kampf.
It finds that the Communists had placed no stock in the old church maxim which had guided American preachers for years: "No souls are saved after the first 20 minutes."
"Her Grace Needs No Hot Trumpet" finds that the Grace Kelly-Prince Rainier wedding party would bear up courageously under the solemn news that Louis Armstrong might not be able to bring his hot horn into Monaco, after all, after having been booked to play at the affair, as he had to play in Australia instead.
It says that it never could imagine
"Satchmo" being at home in the "frigid, high-toned
splendor of a royal wedding anyway." Weddings were not his gig
in the first place, with his freewheeling Dixieland jazz being more
suited to funerals, the joyful type in New Orleans, where the band
marched reverently to the cemetery playing "Flee as a Bird"
It finds that if Ms. Kelly had to
have American jazz at her nuptials, something in the new "cool"
school would suit better the emotional temperature of all the massed
royalty, suggesting perhaps Jack Montrose
A piece from the Richmond News Leader, titled "When the Babe Called His Shot", suggests that such legends as George Washington having thrown a silver dollar across the Rappahannock or the Potomac had probably never happened, just as Sherlock Holmes probably never said, "Quick, Watson, the needle!" and General Lee had never offered his sword to General Grant at Appomattox. But the legends, nevertheless, maintained that those occurrences had taken place and facts had little impact on them.
Chicago Cubs right-hander Charlie Root had learned the previous week of such legends when he undertook to challenge the story that Babe Ruth had called a home run against him in the 1932 World Series and then had hit it. The Yankees slugger had gone without a homer against Cubs pitching in the first two Yankee victories that year and had come to Chicago to face a hostile, jeering crowd. During the first inning, with two men on base, he had hit a home run, putting the Yankees ahead, 3 to 0, then failed to hit in his second at-bat, while the Cubs tied the game at 4-4. The Babe then returned to bat, missed a pitch, struck at one, and then held up one finger, before missing another pitch for strike two, then held up two fingers, to a hissing and jeering crowd, joined by the Cubs bench.
At that point, it indicates, legend had taken over and fact was obscured, with the legend stating that Mr. Ruth had pointed his bat toward the flagpole in centerfield, informing Mr. Root, the Cubs and their bench, plus the hostile Chicago crowd, what he was about to do, then had hit the next pitch out of the park. That, at least, had been the legend.
But Mr. Root denied that it had occurred, saying that he had obtained two strikes on the Babe, and each time, the batter had turned to the Cubs bench and held up first one, then two fingers, then knocking the third pitch out of the park, but without pointing his bat, Mr. Root indicating that if he had, he would have knocked him down.
Neither Paul Mickelson, covering the game for the Associated Press, nor Grantland Rice had referred to the incident in their accounts of the game. Tom Meany, in his authoritative Babe Ruth: The Big Moments of the Big Fellow, published in 1947, had written that "after the game it was unanimously accepted by writers, fans and players that Ruth had called his shot against Root." Frank G. Menke, in his Encyclopedia of Sport, said that the Babe had done it, and Bob Considine, in the ghost-written Babe Ruth Story, said that he had done it.
But the piece finds that the probability was that he had not done it, for otherwise such an observant writer as Grantland Rice would never have failed to mention it. But it allows for the possibility that perhaps he had done it, indicating that it would never be known for certain, unless there was some forgotten newsreel of the incident. It indicates with certainty that baseball fans by the millions would go to their graves, nevertheless, insisting that it had been done. "He had to, you see. He was the Babe."
Drew Pearson tells of U.S. officials having given orders to two cruisers and six destroyers of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean to join with units of the British Mediterranean Fleet in standing off Israeli-Arab ports during the ensuing few weeks, that the reports were based not only on growing Arab fanaticism but also on the fact that the Arab nations presently had the small state of Israel in a bind, whereby, in case of war, Israel could probably be wiped out. The Arabs also had the U.S. in a bind from which it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to extricate itself. Delay, procrastination, and general bungling had put the U.S. in that position, under which one or the other of the objectives in the Near East would be lost, those being the future of Israel, which the country had long championed as a national policy, the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia, considered the greatest in the world, the airbases in Saudi Arabia, which were within striking distance of Moscow, or the airbases in North Africa, located among other Arab peoples, all seething with hatred of Israel and resentment against the West.
In case of war or even the use of U.S. troops around Israel to prevent war, the lives of American women and children at those far-flung North African bases would be in jeopardy.
He indicates that what had occurred to change the balance of power in the Near East were two things, first, the dismissal by Jordan's King Hussein of British Lt. General John Glubb as commander of the Arab Legion, making it possible for the Arabs to invade Israel almost from within Israel, as Jordanian police were operating inside the Old City of Jerusalem and were entrusted with its protection, having been a stabilizing influence as long as they had been under British control, but now no longer being so. The second thing was the arrival of Russian-Czech tanks and jet planes in Egypt, making it possible for Egypt to do to Israel what Hitler had done to Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belgium, and France, that being that Israeli airfields could be wiped out within a few minutes, with the Russian tanks, driven by Egyptians, able to make mincemeat of Israeli defenses. He indicates that Israel was so minute that it probably could be wiped out before American-British troops could intervene.
The previous summer, before the arrival in Egypt of Communist-supplied arms, the opposite had been true, with the well-trained and determined Israeli Army able probably to have captured Cairo, as its troops were far superior to those of the Egyptians in traditional warfare. But they were now far behind in the new Hitler blitzkrieg techniques, thanks to the Soviet tanks and planes.
He finds that the chief cause of the present crisis was a split personality inside the State Department, as well to some extent inside the British Foreign Office. The State Department had been torn between Arabian oil and Israel, with Undersecretary of State Herbert Hoover, Jr., a power of Union Oil of California and the person who had handled the Iranian oil dispute, having sided with the Arabs, while some other State Department officials had sided with Israel. Meanwhile, Secretary Dulles had teetered in between, with that split personality having caused fumbling and delay.
Doris Fleeson indicates that remarks by DNC chairman Paul Butler to an assembly on civil rights in Washington had been designed to set a pattern for the Democratic handling of the issue. For days, DNC experts had pored over the record since 1933 and had concluded with a hard-hitting, tightly organized policy statement, with several distinct parts, the first of which had recalled in detail the progress generally made in civil rights since the beginning of the Roosevelt Administration, with Mr. Butler's thesis being that Presidents Roosevelt and Truman had created a public climate out of which economic, social, political and judicial gains had more or less naturally flowed. Second, Mr. Butler sought to place the burden on President Eisenhower, branding Administration claims of civil rights achievements to be a fraud, indicating that General Eisenhower had supported segregation in the armed services, quoting him by way of proof, claiming that the President still refused to face up to the issue, and joined a call for a White House biracial conference. Third, Mr. Butler re-pledged the Democrats to its 1952 pro-civil rights platform plank and called for the enactment of pending civil rights bills.
The South had not been mentioned at all in the carefully prepared speech and the word "Negro" had appeared only twice, once in a quote from General Eisenhower and the other in a quote from the CIO News.
She indicates that for some reason, Republicans had chosen not to make any use of the assembly, with RNC chairman Leonard Hall refusing to appear and Senate Minority Leader William Knowland and House Minority Leader Joseph Martin also refusing to substitute for Mr. Hall. At the last minute, Congressman Hugh Scott of Philadelphia had appeared, with his record being consistently pro-civil rights. But he had obviously been unprepared for the battle, with his opening remarks being generally correct but then making a blooper in boasting that a few blacks had been invited to the President's famous stag dinners, with politically-conscious blacks regarding that as condescension, which Mr. Butler had skillfully driven home. The latter had also referred to Congressman Scott as the "Republican proxy here tonight", which had delighted the audience. An irritated Mr. Scott demanded rebuttal time and had asked Mr. Butler whether he would make that speech in the South and wanted to know when his appointment was with Senator James Eastland—whom Ms. Fleeson points out was a "racist Mississippian whom seniority has elevated to chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee." Mr. Butler had responded that his remarks had been handed to the press associations for nationwide distribution, and deflected the other comments of Mr. Scott by repeating that he would gladly debate his fellow chairman, Mr. Hall, at any time, any place, but would not take on "Republican proxies".
She concludes that Mr. Butler's refusal to be drawn out on the issue of the South represented a considered policy, which was also that of Adlai Stevenson. In the past, blacks had not held the South against the national party management or the President, and whether present provocations would alter that situation was a risk which Democrats believed they had to take.
The Congressional Quarterly tells of Adlai Stevenson having chosen the potentially troublesome tightrope of moderation toward which to tread in his second attempt to win the presidency. It suggests that March could determine the former Illinois Governor's political future, that he was not an active candidate in the March 13 New Hampshire Democratic primary, but that a full slate of delegates favorable to him had been entered in the race, that a resounding defeat by delegates pledged to Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee would create a psychological problem when the names of the two men were to go before the voters a week later in the Minnesota primary, where they would be in open competition, with Mr. Stevenson having the advantage because most of the party organization in that state supported him. But a standoff in election of delegates could cause a damaging prestige blow for Mr. Stevenson.
The latter's aspirations had been built on a policy of moderation, which most political observers believed was the backbone of the Administration, with polling suggesting that such a stance was approved by the majority of the American people. Such a stance could have dangers, however, as several important voices among Democrats, including former President Truman and Governor G. Mennen Williams of Michigan, had stated their disagreement with Mr. Stevenson's stance, though not altering the latter's course.
Soon after Mr. Stevenson had announced his 1956 candidacy, he had delivered a now-controversial political speech on the need for moderation, which had drawn the criticism of Governors Williams and Averell Harriman of New York, the latter potentially a Democratic rival. Mr. Stevenson had nevertheless reiterated his moderate course in entering primaries throughout the country, choosing only those which would allow voter expression on his candidacy over a broad geographical area. His critics, however, had contended that he was picking only the states where he could win.
Mr. Stevenson had stated that he was against the use of Federal troops to enforce desegregation of public schools and had asked for time to work out the problems. He had said that the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education was the law of the land and that he favored the decision, but added that the nation had to proceed gradually in such matters, that the tradition of generations could not be upset overnight.
His criticism of the Administration had been along the same lines, emphasizing in various speeches that he agreed with the fundamental Administration foreign policy, which he contended had come from the Democrats, but indicating that there had been major mistakes in the execution of that policy by the Republicans.
During the recent natural gas deregulation fight, Mr. Stevenson at first had walked a tightrope, saying that the bill deserved consideration, while doubting that it provided enough protection for consumers. When the President had vetoed the bill because of what he called "arrogant" pressures for it from the natural gas lobby, Mr. Stevenson had said that the veto was "right but for the wrong reasons."
Regarding agriculture, Mr. Stevenson had said that he believed a return to fixed 90 percent of parity price supports was desirable, although not the full response to declining farm prices.
Regarding taxation, he had also expressed a moderate position earlier in the year, when discussing whether there was need for an income tax reduction in 1956, having said "we cannot talk intelligently or reasonably about any tax reduction until we have made some assessment of our national needs, as well as the problem of reduction of the national debt."
It concludes that the Stevenson philosophy of moderation was demonstrated also in his disagreement with the Administration, as well with some Democrats, regarding emphasis rather than policy in such areas as foreign aid, Federal insurance programs, education, internal security and labor legislation.
Robert C. Ruark, in Sydney, Australia, indicates that the papers told him that England had eliminated hanging, at least for the time being, as the ultimate penalty for murder, rape, some types of robbery and arson, with those on death row having their sentences temporarily commuted. He says that no one had asked him but that he did not believe that abolition of the death penalty for extreme crimes was a good thing, that the old Mosaic law was still sound.
He had never believed that the state should punish vindictively merely to extract poetic justice by the execution of a killer. "Extermination of a varmint would be a better definition, but a man, a smart man, said something that convinces me that capital punishment has a point. He said, 'I don't care whether you are a moron or a dope fiend, those last days in a cell mustn't be very pleasant, and I should certainly think twice before I did a bloke in. I possibly wouldn't mind hanging but the waiting for it would be bloody awful.'"
He believes that life imprisonment was not a strong enough deterrent because a man could get used to anything that he had to do daily.
He finds it arguable that the person who killed, raped, burned or committed armed burglary was out of his mind, especially the hired killer, and that the sociological tendency was to see the offender as a victim of his own complexes, "a crazy, mixed-up kid." Under that argument, the person should only be put away and rehabilitated if possible, before being set free. Nobody was guilty of anything and there was no need for cops.
But he takes the view that a man who took a life for any reason was a menace to the world and should be put down, that his sympathy had always been with the victim, not the killer.
He admits that it was harsh reasoning but he believed the gibbet, the garrote, the guillotine, the electric chair and the gas chamber had a place in the present time, "if only to offer an unpleasant prospect for the future to the person who robs another of the only thing you have once—life."
His cynical, presumptuous approach to the matter, however, does not allow for...
A letter writer says that he favored Mr. Campbell for judge of Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, despite what others said. He also favored a Democrat for Congress from the 10th District, turning the state's delegation unanimously back to the Democrats. He also favors someone on the County Board of Commissioners whom the people wanted, and four Democrats for the State House. He says that there was no need for a bull moose in the North Carolina House and no need for any Republicans in City Hall, the County Court House or the State House in Raleigh. He says that the 10th District had profited during the previous three years, when Republican Charles Jonas had represented it, only by continuing the foundation laid by Democrats, asking what the condition had been of the nation between 1921 and 1933, during the Harding, Coolidge and Hoover Administrations, the "12 years of idle-ism and almost bankruptcy, the loss of 15,000 banks". He asks whether Democrats who had voted for Republicans believed they were due any credit, answers in the negative, as the prosperity which had been present during the previous three years was no credit to the Republican Administration, it having only handed over to the top rank and file what it could get away with doing. He says that such Democrats had gotten what they were due, that one could not spend blanks, which was all the Republicans had offered, as all they wanted was the person's vote, after which the voter could take a walk for the ensuing four years.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.