The Charlotte News
Tuesday, May 1, 1956
FOUR EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that the Marine Corps had said this date that Staff Sgt. Matthew McKeon had been under the influence of liquor at the time he had ordered his platoon of recruits to embark on a nighttime march on April 8, into a swampy river adjoining the Parris Island base in South Carolina, where six of the men had drowned. Recommending court-martial for the sergeant, the Corps said that he had told the recruits that "those who couldn't swim would drown" and that "those who could would be eaten by sharks". The Corps announced that trial for the sergeant on charges ranging up to manslaughter had been recommended to the Secretary of the Navy, Charles Thomas. Marine Corps commandant, General Randolph Pate, told the House Armed Services Committee that he had ordered the transfer of Maj. General J. C. Burger from command of the Parris Island base, and the Pentagon had said that he would be transferred to command the base at Camp Lejeune, N.C., where there was no recruit training. General Pate had also directed a sweeping reorganization of recruit training, including special assignment of commissioned officers reporting directly to the commandant, plus stringent enforcement of rules against training assignments for men who made "intemperate" use of alcohol. He gave the Committee a previously secret report on the findings of the inquiry court report, together with his report on the actions that he had taken in the matter and those he had recommended to Secretary Thomas. He included a specific finding that the sergeant did not have authority to take punitive measures against any member of his 78-man platoon. The sergeant had said that he took the men into the swamp "to teach them discipline". The inquiry court report said that when panic had developed as the recruits got into deep water, the sergeant had ordered them back to the bank, and that he and others had then attempted rescue of those still in the water, but that the rescue operations had been "disorganized and mostly ineffective." The effort had gone on, according to the report, for about five minutes until no recruits were observed in a dangerous depth of water. In interviews, survivors had credited the sergeant with saving lives and being "the last man out" of the deep water. The Navy said that the office of the judge advocate general was presently studying the recommendations of the report with regard to the sergeant and would make its own recommendations to Secretary Thomas as soon as possible. The potential penalties on the charges against the sergeant ranged from one month to ten years in prison.
In Honolulu, it was reported that the Atomic Energy Commission and the Defense Department had calculated the cost of a series of large-scale nuclear weapons tests, such as that beginning in the central Pacific proving ground, to be more than 100 million dollars, with the cost being high compared with those tests being held at intervals at the proving ground at Yucca Flat, Nev., but that the Pacific tests were "fully acceptable because of their value to weapons development." Operation Castle, which had taken place at the Pacific proving ground in spring, 1954, had included detonation of the largest hydrogen bomb yet exploded, and the AEC said officially that three detonations had been made during the tests, it having been the basis for the cost estimate. The material made available this date pertained to Operation Redwing, which might involve more than ten tests, some, however, to be small. The first detonation of the new series would bring the total nuclear detonations from American-made test devices and weapons to at least 65, of which 63 had been officially admitted, since the original Trinity atomic test of July 16, 1945.
In an odd omission from the front page by the newspaper, there is no mention of the death the previous day of former Vice-President and past and present Kentucky Senator Alben Barkley
RNC chairman Leonard Hall revealed to the press this date, after conferring with the President, that the latter would probably make five or six television campaign speeches during the fall, with some of those speeches likely to occur outside Washington, that nothing more was expected of the President during the campaign, which probably would get underway around mid-September. Mr. Hall said that "peace and prosperity" was the overriding issue of the campaign, and that they were not taking anything for granted. He said he expected most of the Cabinet and other top Administration officers, including Vice-President Nixon, to participate in the campaign. When asked a question about some Democrats accusing Mr. Nixon of a "smile and smear" technique of campaigning, Mr. Hall laughed and said that he recalled that some Democrats had also accused Mr. Nixon of saying that the Democratic Party was "a party of treason", and that some time earlier, he had offered to pay $1,000 to charity if anyone could prove that Mr. Nixon had ever said that. He said, "Dick Nixon is a tough fighter and the fact he is under fire by them indicates he is the one they fear the most."
That sounds like something we were just hearing today from some people, albeit not about Dick Nixon.
In Pinehurst, N.C., at a gathering of the Medical Society of North Carolina, the outgoing president, Dr. James Rousseau of Winston-Salem, said this date that there was a "serious disease" of "compulsory uniformity of human behavior", with its causes being "the growth of a strongly centralized power in our trade unions, political parties, various organizations, government and hospitals which impose strict rules on its members and citizens." He said it was serious partly because it could not be for the ultimate good of mankind and partly because it implied powerful but dimly understood forces, which could not be controlled, forces which, if they achieved their "objective of power and control over the lives of individual citizens, the moral and monetary incentive to live, work, create and investigate, life would hardly be worthwhile," resulting in "a slave state—a dictatorship". He suggested that public relations, civil defense, rural health, mental health, maternal welfare, neonatal death, the physically handicapped and the problems of chronic illness in a rapidly aging population, would demand increasingly the time of the medical profession. He said that home, farm and highway accidents had become the most urgent problem of the American public and that the medical profession ought take the lead in education regarding methods of prevention and treatment of those problems. He also urged further study of the marked increase of malpractice suits in the profession, and that such suits should not be settled unless obvious error had been committed.
Emery Wister of The News reports of the formal opening of the Charlotte Division of the Douglas Aircraft Co. at the Charlotte Ordnance Missile Plant to be held on May 22, according to the plant manager and the commanding officer of the Philadelphia Ordnance District. Governor Luther Hodges and Representative Charles Jonas would be among the dignitaries speaking at the program, along with many high-ranking officers and officials of the Defense Department. Mayor Philip Van Every would preside over the program, which, weather permitting, would be held outside near the flagpole of the plant. The public would be invited and could tour practically all of the plant, except for a few "secret areas". The plant was rapidly becoming one of the most modern missile factories in the world, according to the plant manager. After its opening, the public would no longer be admitted for tours. About 16 million dollars was being spent to convert the former Charlotte Quartermaster Depot into the facility, with construction still underway.
Ann Sawyer of The News reports that additional ABC funds, not included in the County's tentative budget, would decrease the tentative tax rate by at least two cents, according to one member of the County Board of Commissioners, Sam McNinch, who said that the County could depend on at least $100,000, and perhaps as much as $150,000, in additional ABC funds, that is from the controlled sale of alcoholic beverages. The City would receive a similar amount for its 1956-57 budget.
Charles Kuralt of The News
reports that a local civic club, the Eastern Lions Club, had gone to
work this date to establish a hospital center for the mentally ill of
the city. The chairman of the club's mental health committee said
that the club was "all shook up" regarding the absence of
psychiatric facilities in the community and would sponsor a survey
during the month to discover the city's needs, would thereafter
undertake to raise money if possible to begin to correct mental
health shortages. The survey would be conducted by a professor of
psychiatry at Bowman Gray School of Medicine and the director of
Graylyn Psychiatric Hospital in Winston-Salem, Dr. Lloyd Thompson,
who would come to Charlotte on May 18 to begin the study. The head of
the Charlotte Mental Health Clinic, Dr. Marshall Fisher, said that he
expected Dr. Thompson to find that, despite the fact that State
hospital facilities had improved during the previous year, the city
needed a 40-bed ward immediately for handling acute psychiatric
disorders
Unconfirmed reports circulated in some Charlotte offices of New York security dealers this date that the U.S. subsidiary of Bowater, reputed to be the world's greatest producer of print paper, was preparing to construct a multi-million-dollar paper mill in the Charlotte area of South Carolina. In New York, the president of the firm refused to confirm or deny the report that it was considering building the plant. The Lancaster (S.C.) News had reported that adequate protection of the Catawba River against water pollution upstream from the site of the proposed plant at Van Wyck, S.C., was the major remaining problem confronting the company and the authorities of South Carolina and North Carolina, reporting that the paper firm planned to build the plant, estimated that it would cost up to 50 million dollars and would employ between 2,000 and 2,500 persons.
On the editorial page, "Buses: What the Court Didn't Say" finds that the routine handling by the Supreme Court of the intrastate bus segregation case, decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis of Brown v. Board of Education, and finding unconstitutional, therefore, continued segregation on the municipal buses of Columbia, S.C., permitting to go forward a lawsuit of a woman suing the bus company for discrimination, the Supreme Court having let the decision stand by refusing to hear the appeal, had generated wide misunderstanding and confusion.
The decision had left the widespread impression, which the press had innocently helped to spread, that the Court had formally banned segregation on intrastate buses, while the best legal advice available suggested otherwise, even though indicating that the old separate-but-equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson was on its way out in public transportation. The final coup de grace, however, could not come until the case worked its way back through the lower courts, giving the South further time to adjust, while there was no basis for hope that anything more than delay would occur.
It indicates that misunderstanding only added to the trials and tribulation of the troubled times in the South, and that the Supreme Court, in matters of such far-reaching importance, ought make every reasonable effort to issue a decision with a clear position, with no room left for doubt. "In the quiet of a storm center one must never forget the force of the peripheral gusts."
"Hoover: The Best Modern President?" tells of U.S. News & World Report having printed a ten-page report on time spent away from Washington by modern Presidents, with Herbert Hoover having had the best record of any President thus far in the Twentieth Century, averaging 44.5 days per year away from Washington, compared with FDR's average of 130 days and President Eisenhower's 124 days. Presidents Wilson, Harding, Coolidge and Truman all spent more time at their desks than either FDR or Eisenhower.
It suggests, however, that time spent in Washington could not determine the quality of the Presidency, as the stealing had gone on anyway under President Harding, regardless of whether he was in Washington or back in Ohio or elsewhere. Nor had it mattered whether President Coolidge had kept cool in his office or on a trout stream somewhere in Vermont or elsewhere, "there was nothing doing, either way." It finds that the point was not how long a President was on vacation but whether he went to work when he got back, whom he left in charge in the meantime, and whether he left emergencies hanging on the hook.
It is for more and longer vacations by Presidents, provided they earned them while on the job, the only question it finds in absenteeism.
"Bringing the Mountain to Mohammed" indicates that North Carolina probably led the nation in bringing culture to the hinterlands, with its bookmobiles and famous "suitcase symphony" having toured the state for years. But thousands of North Carolinians had never had the opportunity previously to observe an original painting by an old master.
Now, however, Raleigh's Sam Ragan had come up with the idea of an "artmobile", with artworks held in the new State Art Museum in Raleigh put on tour around the state for those who could not get to Raleigh to view them.
It suggests that after seeing a sample, some people might be inclined to venture to Raleigh to the Museum to see the whole collection, and that the educational effect of such a tour would be great, as the viewing of an original painting was similar to hearing a symphony orchestra live, with reproductions never quite so satisfying. It urges that art ought be shared and that North Carolina should make every effort to share its artistic treasures with as many of its citizens as possible.
"The New 'Klan': A Study in
Fatigue" indicates that "like weary, asthmatic phantoms
The gathering had occurred at Woodruff, S.C., and, like their ancestors, the participants were "armed with righteous rage", coming "to cry out against unmanageable fate", "to shape their malice carefully". But there was something different, a certain tiredness mixed in with the emotion, an intellectual weariness in the arguments of the leader, physical fatigue in the attitudes and actions of his henchmen. The evening had worn on as hooded figures passed through the crowd distributing hate literature. Some of the Klansmen had worn no masks and others had removed them as the night went on, to obtain a breath of fresh air. Two had sat down on the running board of the truck used as a platform for the speaker, hot and exhausted from their exertions.
By the time the 90-minute meeting had ended, some of the crowd had already departed to get a headstart on the traffic, while those remaining walked off quietly, kicking aside the pamphlets which had been left scattered on the ground by disinterested readers.
As the crowd dispersed, two young boys used the light from the burning cross and the bear electric light bulbs to play catch with a ball, the ball once rolling near the truck and, in answer to a cry from one of the boys, a hooded figure having leaned over and weakly tossed the ball to one of them. Drowsy eyes from behind the hoods had watched the boys play.
"The Klan had done its work for the evening and it was tired. So has the South tired of the Klan."
A piece from the Tulsa Tribune, titled "Get That Doll off the Phone!" tells of a patent just having been issued on a doll which would run a fever and submit to having its temperature taken, a device in its head making its skin appear flushed when the thermometer hit more than 98.6.
It indicates that the great-grandmother's doll had achieved a certain life-like quality by having its eyes close when placed on a bed, and grandmother's doll having gone a step further by whimpering "ma-ma" when properly squeezed, while mother's doll had achieved what seemed to be at the time the ultimate, wetting itself after being bottle-fed. Now came the fever-running doll.
It finds that progress never ceased, that when the daughter eventually grew up and had a daughter, there might be a doll which hung on the telephone all day, wanted to borrow the family car and stay out too late with the boy in the next block.
It appears to predict accurately
Barbie and Ken, just three or four years away. After that, will come the butcher dolls
Drew Pearson indicates that the following day, when the Senate Investigating Committee looked into the Vice-President's close friend and confidant, Murray Chotiner, they would have to be extremely smart as he was not only an attorney but one of the shrewdest public relations men on the West Coast, had not only managed the Vice-President's campaign in 1952, but also his Senate campaign in 1950 and his first campaign for the House in 1946, having conceived the Checkers speech to the nation in September, 1952, in which Senator Nixon had managed to sidestep criticism over his $18,000 personal expense fund.
Senator John McClellan of Arkansas would be examining Mr. Chotiner, and while he could be a penetrating prober when he wanted to be, he had exhibited latent sympathies for the Nixon-Republican side. Senator Karl Mundt of South Dakota and Senator McCarthy were also on the Committee, and so would be helping along Mr. Chotiner when needed, such that he would likely escape unscathed.
Mr. Pearson indicates that behind Mr. Chotiner's career, however, were some interesting circumstances, if the Committee wanted to probe deep enough, with Sam and Herman Kravitz, the clothing manufacturers who had been blacklisted for cheating the Army, having been in income tax trouble, and having hired Mr. Chotiner of Beverly Hills to represent them because of his connections in high places. The previous week, the Kravitzes had repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about their various troubles, and Mr. Chotiner had already told the Senate Committee that he would invoke the attorney-client privilege and refuse to answer questions.
Mr. Pearson suggests that Senator McCarthy would have protested in front-page headlines had witnesses done that to him, and that, likewise, Mr. Nixon would have done so when a member of HUAC between 1947 and 1951, as he had been ruthless with witnesses who refused to testify. In the matter involving the Kravitzes and Mr. Chotiner, however, Senator McCarthy had gone to the Senate floor to provide an excuse for him not planning to testify.
The Congressional Quarterly tells of the joinder of leading Southern segregation groups and Northern nationalist forces, with possibly far-reaching consequences for the presidential election. Accomplished without fanfare or public notice, the nationalists and the states' rights advocates had found common cause in a political strategy aimed at throwing the 1956 presidential election into the House by backing independent presidential electors in the North and a third-party candidate in the South. They had formed a statement of principles, including acceptance by the Northerners of the doctrine of interposition, permitting a state to use its authority to prevent enforcement of Federal law, and had adopted a common program in Congress centered on passage of a bill to guarantee a "states' rights" interpretation of laws by the Supreme Court.
Formidable obstacles stood in the way of their success as the Eisenhower years had been accompanied by a weakening of right-wing influence in the Republican Party, while strong forces in the North and the South were working to prevent a split within the Democratic Party regarding civil rights, though the possibility of a third party was not being overlooked.
The coalition had begun evolving its political strategy the previous winter. On November 19, For America, a 30,000-member group, which had been active in espousing nationalist principles, had reorganized as a committee for political action. The first of three meetings had been held the prior December to establish the Federation for Constitutional Government, a loose-knit association of white citizens councils formed in 11 Southern states to fight implementation of Brown v. Board of Education. In late February, John U. Barr of New Orleans, acting head of the Southern Federation, said that he wanted alliances with other "organizations with different primary interests but similar ultimate objectives." Eleven members of the executive and advisory committees of the Federation presently sat on the national policy board of For America, with one of them being a candidate for the Democratic Texas gubernatorial nomination, playing the role of liaison between the two organizations.
In public statements, For America and the FCG disclaimed interest in forming a third party in 1956, with Mr. Barr stating that they were not involved in political action but were just trying to build grassroots support for their program, while For America said it had never advocated a third-party movement, with both groups saying they lacked financial support to form such a movement in the current year, but intended to increase their strength, hoping to form a major effort in 1960. Leaders of both groups admitted privately that their goals probably could not be achieved within either of the two major parties.
For America had announced it was establishing a program for the selection of independent electors in various states, who would "provide a hedge against the possibility that candidates of either party would continue to subordinate American to international interests." Only 18 states listed electors on the ballots and most of them required naming of the presidential candidate favored by those electors, and so there was doubt as to how extensively the independent elector strategy could be used. Thus far, For America had not chosen a candidate to back for the presidency.
The piece indicates that the tactic could probably succeed only if it were coupled with a full-blown third-party movement within the South, which was what the newly formed alliance expected. The Southern Federation, which had on its advisory board the 1948 States' Rights candidates, Senator Strom Thurmond and former Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, might decide to throw its grassroots strength behind a similar Dixiecrat effort in 1956.
Retired Brig. General Bonner Fellers, the national director of For America, stated that he did not think the South would go along with the Democrats in the current year and if a third-party ticket could attract 100 electoral votes in the South, not too many more would be necessary to throw the election into the House, which he said was their goal.
In 1948, the States' Rights ticket had carried four states with 139 electoral votes, but a shift of just 25,000 votes in California and Ohio would have thrown the election into the House that year.
A double attack was in prospect for 1956, with one using a candidate to draw off votes from the Democratic nominee in the South and another, in the form of the independent electors, set to draw strength from the Republican nominee in the North, with the goal being a showdown in the House, where the coalition could play one party against the other for maximum concessions to its point of view.
The piece concludes that their confidence stemmed in large part from a new-found agreement on principles, which would be the subject of a second in its series of reports on the subject.
A letter writer says that she had been antagonized by the "narrow-minded insolence" with which some people were reacting to rock 'n' roll music, that if they did not like it, all they had to do was not to listen to it. She responds to one previous letter writer who had said that she loved her country well enough to fight its enemies, this writer saying that she also loved the country well enough to fight for its freedom, which included freedom to listen to the music of one's choice. She does not consider composers of rock 'n' roll music to be enemies, rather great artists, indicating that she appreciated the art of music, including classical and rock 'n' roll. She believes that God had endowed rock 'n' roll artists with the gift of great talent and that people were fortunate to be able to hear them. But she makes exception when people could not conduct themselves in a socially acceptable manner, though not condemning the artists for those indiscretions. She suggests that the reporter, as stated by the previous letter writer, who had been "utterly shocked" and "sickened" at a rock 'n' roll performance, should find a another field of endeavor, as in reporting, she was certain he would encounter other incidents more shocking than rock 'n' roll and would not be able to endure them. She does not endorse the type of fans the previous letter writer had described, contorting their bodies and removing their garments during a performance, but doubts that any more was revealed than ballet dancers whom one saw frequently on television, and so believes there should not be any great issue made of it. She indicates that mostly teenagers participated in the activities and that dancing was just part of growing up, a completely harmless release of emotions. She favors well-chaperoned rock 'n' roll performances in community centers, in which case she believes it would be a great asset in keeping delinquents off the streets and giving them supervised recreation. She doffs her hat to the composers, musicians and promoters of rock 'n' roll music, as well as to those who were able to recognize a good thing when they heard it, especially the few disc jockeys who had not dropped rock 'n' roll music, including Ted Thomas, Hound Dog, Chatty Hatty, and Genial Gene.
A letter writer from Whiteville indicates that according to press reports, State Attorney General W. B. Rodman had been confused regarding the recent ruling on desegregation of intrastate buses, after the Supreme Court had refused to hear the case decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that Brown v. Board of Education, not Plessy v. Ferguson, controlled segregation of intrastate buses, such that a lawsuit filed by a black woman in Columbia, S.C., challenging the segregation of seating on municipal buses, could proceed forward, the Supreme Court thus leaving in place the Court of Appeals decision. The letter writer indicates that Mr. Rodman had been quoted as saying that it was "impossible to say what the Supreme Court of the United States meant" by declining to hear the case further. This writer thinks the same applied to Brown, a "manifesto or monograph treatise on such non-legal subjects as psychology, sociology and anthropology, plagiarized by the court from books on such more or less nonsensical subjects and … offered by the Court as the sole basis for concluding that the long-established rule of 'separate but equal' school facilities for the races is not now, in this day of 'great enlightenment,' constitutional, such separation from the white race causing the Negro to become a second-class citizen; that the Negro child was unable to acquire even the limited public school education presently available, unless allowed to occupy class rooms with white children, and that such separation causes the Negro to suffer from some kind of mental 'inferiority complexes,' unless he is permitted to mingle with the white race, not only in schools, buses and trains, but in public parks and on golf links." The writer contends that Brown did not apply to any of the 48 states but only to the five school boards immediately before the Court, those out of Kansas, Virginia, South Carolina, Delaware, and, as decided separately in Bolling v. Sharpe, the District of Columbia, (for it arising in a Federal district and thus not cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment applicable only to the states, but rather under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause).
And, having adopted that completely fallacious premise, ignoring the legal principles set forth in the case, the letter writer goes on from there trying to make his fallacious argument. Along the way, he quotes from a New York case, People v. Gallagher, upholding a New York statute passed in 1864 permitting segregated public schools, the case upholding the denial of admission to a black student at an all-white school. The writer does not bother to inform the reader, of course, that the case was decided in 1883, 13 years before Plessy, instead behaving as if that decision should advance the ball somehow in favor of continuing segregation in the public schools nearly 75 years later, essentially contending that, well, they done it in the North and so what's the big deal?
He also cites a Supreme Court case from 1925, completely inapposite to the points he is trying to argue, Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, which held that the compulsory education law in Oregon took away the right of parents and students to determine for themselves the school they wished to attend, limiting attendance, except in specified cases, to the public schools. He apparently cites it for the following language:
"No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare." [Emphasis added.]
He makes the mistake of assuming that the Court was affirmatively holding that the state could reasonably regulate all schools, when in fact it only indicated that the question was not raised in the case, and even if it had been, the Court made clear that "rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state", thus actually cutting against the argument he tries to make regarding segregation of the public schools, not in the least in issue in Pierce, thus for good reason never cited in Brown, as apparently never having been raised in briefing by the parties and not needing to be distinguished by the Court. Brown did not mandate the schools to which students would attend, only holding that when the states provided public schools, they could not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as Plessy had also held with respect to segregated railroad passenger cars, the difference being that Plessy allowed compliance with the Equal Protection Clause by separate but equal facilities for both races, while Brown found that there was, realistically, no method to make separate facilities substantially equal, as segregation per se implied an inferior status of the members of the minority race and thus violated equal protection, still, however, as with all cases arising under the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring state action to be cognizable, and thus not applicable to private schools not receiving public support.
And if you believe the letter writer's argument, you probably also believe that Trumpy-Dumpy-Do is as innocent as the driven snow and that they ought to lock up Hillary Clinton, President Biden, President Obama, and anyone else on the "left" with whom you disagree, and live happily ever after in your Fascist dictatorship, controlled and kept in lock-step by the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers, answering to no one but your individual right to keep and bear arms, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.
We
suggest to all you steadfast Trumpies that you pack up and move to a
place where you will feel much more comfortable in living, such as in
Russia or Australia
A letter writer indicates that by permitting certain bus companies to defy state law, requiring segregation on the buses, Governor Luther Hodges had shown himself not to believe in states' rights. She predicts that he would soon permit integrated schools, along with the integrationists' friend, Governor Jim Folsom of Alabama, finding that both Governors were seemingly cut from the same cloth.
A letter writer from Rock Hill, S.C., indicates that he had been reading all about the memory course of Sigmund Blomberg, being carried as a daily serial in the News, and had told his wife that he did not need to worry as he had not forgotten anything since he mislaid his fourth grade report card, that the guy who wore bow ties, whose name he could not recall, could not teach him anything, as he had "one of those sharp, keen minds that never forgets a face or name", remembering a story of a fellow on the street who had stopped another and said: "By George, you sure look familiar to me. Did I meet you at the Country Club? No! Don't tell me. Let me think. Must have been the last time I visited the old school. No don't tell me. Let me think. No! Who are you?" The other man then said, "I'm your brother, Joe."
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.