The Charlotte News
Thursday, June 21, 1956
THREE EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that Senators investigating air power policies had apologized this date to Senator Herbert Lehman of New York for two Defense Department security agents having checked his office the previous day for possible electronic snooping devices, with the Department also indicating that it would apologize. Senator Lehman told newsmen that he planned to go to the Senate floor later to protest the "methods used". One of his office clerks had been startled the previous day when a Capitol policeman and the two Defense Department agents had asked to check a room of the office containing files and a refrigerator. In an adjoining room, Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri had been conducting closed-door secret testimony from top military officials in the investigation of air power by a Senate Armed Services subcommittee. Senator Lehman protested by telephone to Senator Symington regarding the invasion of his privacy, and the latter had called in the Capitol policeman and the security agents for an unusual public hearing this date, then suggesting following the sworn testimony that the subcommittee ought apologize to Senator Lehman, with an explanation that the agents were "merely doing their jobs". Senators Leverett Saltonstall of Massachusetts and James Duff of Pennsylvania had quickly agreed, and the general counsel for the Defense Department had said that it would follow suit.
Senate and House confreres working on the construction features of the highway bill this date had completed their compromise of the 32.9 billion dollar measure, with the chairman of the Senate group, Senator Dennis Chavez of New Mexico, calling the measure "the greatest public works program in the history of the world," which would be "a wonderful thing for our economy and it will bring untold benefits to the American people." A second set of confreres were trying to work out the differences between the two bills regarding their tax features, with agreement not anticipated to be difficult, though it was not expected that the House could take up the compromise measure before the following week. The House had voted for 14.8 billion of additional taxes stretching over a period of 16 years to help finance the building program, while the Senate had cut 300 million from that figure by easing a special levy on heavy trucks, with the 32.9 billion dollar figure being lower than those used by either the House or the Senate, through limiting to three years the bill's application to primary, secondary and urban road-building programs. The Senate had passed a 37 billion dollar program and projected it to extend over a period of five years, while the House had passed a 51.5 billion dollar program to extend over 13 years. The Federal money available for the three road systems would be increased over the present 700 million dollars per year.
Before a subcommittee of HUAC this date, playwright Arthur Miller testified that he had never been under Communist Party discipline, but did not deny that he had contributed to front groups. He was questioned at length about his activities in 1947 when he received his first passport, as the Committee was currently investigating misuses of American passports to aid international Communism. Mr. Miller said that he did not recall most of the incidents about which he had been questioned but stated that he would not deny the assertions being made, indicating that he had signed a lot of things in those days, but that he would not be doing it at the present time. He said that it had suited his mood in 1947 but that he was currently not in an "investigating mood". He also said that he would not presently support a cause dominated by Communists. Aware, Inc., had listed him as allegedly having belonged at some point to several organizations listed as subversive by the Attorney General, and in 1954, the State Department had rejected his application for a passport to Belgium to see a production of one of his plays, based on the belief that he supported the Communist movement. The previous year, the New York City Youth Board, a semi-official City agency, rejected plans to make a movie about juvenile delinquents after several veterans organizations had protested, based on Mr. Miller having written the outline for the script. He had never previously been called before any official investigating agency and had issued a sharply critical statement when the movie had been canceled. His first hit on Broadway had been "All My Sons" in 1944, followed in 1948 by "Death of a Salesman", which had won the Drama Critics and Pulitzer Prizes, and "The Crucible", which had received a Tony Award for the Outstanding Play of 1952. Two days earlier, Drew Pearson had suggested that Committee counsel Richard Arens would practice his own brand of witch-burning in grilling Mr. Miller.
In speaking with reporters during a
short break in the hearing, Mr. Miller had announced that he would
marry Marilyn Monroe
In Philadelphia, Dr. David Lewis of the Philadelphia General Hospital revealed that they had developed a tiny microphone or transducer, smaller than the head of a pin, which could be inserted into the heart so that doctors could locate the exact spot and record the precise sound of heart trouble. The transducer had been developed through naval acoustic technology related to anti-submarine warfare. It consisted of a barium titanate element built into a specifically designed cardiac catheter. Dr. Lewis said that the sound, converted into electrical energy while still inside the heart, traveled through the catheter in much the same manner that the human voice traveled along telephone wires, with the sound then recorded and amplified. The doctor was a 30-year old assistant professor of physiology at the University of Pennsylvania and graduate hospitals and was assisted by Dr. Samuel Bellet, chief of the division of cardiology at the General Hospital. It was the first time doctors had been able to hear sounds from the heart directly, previously having to rely on a stethoscope listening through the chest walls, the lungs and the heart muscle. The technique had been used on seven persons of varying ages and the device had been introduced only into the right side of the heart. The doctors were trying to make the transducer smaller so that it could also be used in the left side of the heart.
In Upper Marlboro, Md., a 16-year old reform school inmate confessed to the slaying of two teenage girls in a park a year earlier near the University of Maryland, according to the local district attorney. The youth had been admitted to the Maryland Training School for boys several weeks earlier for car theft and had provided to police investigators a detailed account of ambushing the girls in the park with a .22-caliber repeater rifle, at a location a few miles outside the nation's capital. The two girls, ages 16 and 14, had been killed on the morning of June 15, 1955 as they walked through the suburban park to obtain the report card of the older of the two at a nearby high school. The district attorney said that they were checking out one or two inconsistencies in the boy's story before charging him. He had not known either of the two girls. A motive was provided by the boy to the police but was not made public. The name of the youth was not provided.
In West Los Angeles, the 24-year old
son
In Charlotte, four members of the Mecklenburg County School Board this date had endorsed incumbent member J. Mason Smith in his race against Dan Hood, and had taken exception to statements by Mr. Hood which had been published in the newspaper the prior week.
Dick Bayer of The News had asked young couples living in Selwyn Village in Charlotte whether the chores of the home were softening up the average male for a premature funeral, as contended by the 78-year old mother of six from Levittown, Pa., in a report which had appeared the previous day in the newspaper, finding the opinion of most interviewed to be contrary to that of the woman. Three wives and a husband defended the new-fangled way of doing things by cooperation of spouses in the household. Other housewives said that the house work performed by their husbands would not lead them to an early grave and that they were good about helping around the house. One young husband said that if he died an early death, it would not be from housework, as he was not overworked at home, had never done the "proverbial dish washing".
In Atlanta, two teenagers had taken $2,781 in bank deposits from an auto parts store clerk headed to the bank. They were caught within minutes, with a 16-year old of the pair still clutching $103 of the loot and the remainder found in a nearby bushy area. Detectives said that the youths stated that the robbery had been a spur of the moment decision. The clerk had been driving along when one of the boys yelled out to him, "Hey, cat, how about a ride?" The driver, whose nickname was Pat, said that he thought they had said, "Hey, Pat, how about a ride?" and so stopped because he thought they knew him. The two boys had ridden in the back of the truck, had spotted the envelope containing the cash through the rear window, and when he stopped to make the deposit, they had snatched it.
In Wilson, N.C., a plumber had found 180 hundred-dollar bills in a water heater at a residence, and a compromise had been reached whereby he would be permitted to keep 15 of the bills and the owner would receive the remaining 165, after the owner had sued to recover the bills which the plumber had sought to retain after having shown them to the owner when he found them and the owner had said he knew nothing about them, offering the plumber a reward of five dollars, which was all he had at the time, though he had been planning to increase the reward later. He also stated that it turned out that his wife had hidden the money and had not told him where it was, that she had been under sedation for some time prior to her death in June, 1954, and that he knew that the money was somewhere in the house. The court had ruled that the $18,000 was the property of the deceased woman.
On the editorial page, "The Supreme Court and Its Critics" indicates that not all of the criticism of the Court, as Strom Thurmond had recently noted, was coming from the South, that some states in agreement with Brown v. Board of Education were in disagreement with the Court on its decision to reject state sedition laws, while other areas had disagreed with the Court's decision to override state right-to-work laws. Still others criticized various decisions regarding civil liberties.
It finds that since the 1930's, the Court had not been so heavily criticized and that not since that time had there been so much Congressional action designed to curb the Court, with several bills presently pending for that purpose.
It finds that misconceptions of the Court arising out of the criticism were that it was a single-minded body bent on destruction of liberties, that New Deal Democrats had control of it and that it was systematically destroying the states. Yet, in practice, the Justices were often bitterly divided, with the majority positions swinging between the liberals and the conservatives on the Court. Two Republican appointees, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice John Harlan, had been appointed by President Eisenhower, and they tended to be more liberal than Justices Stanley Reed and Sherman Minton, appointed by FDR and President Truman, respectively.
While the Court had garnered big headlines by overturning the state sedition laws, finding that Congress had intended to preempt state laws in the Federal legislation, it was at the same time upholding other state laws. While there was a tendency to concentrate more power in Congress and the Federal Constitution, there was also a trend toward defending the rights of individuals from encroachment through Federal or state laws. The Court, it suggests, was clearly out of step with large elements of the population, as it had been also in the 1930's. Yet, there was no better argument at present for curtailing its powers than there had been at that time, when, in 1937, President Roosevelt had put forth his court-packing plan, to add assistant justices up to six in number, one for each Justice turning 70 years old, a plan ultimately firmly rejected by Congress and losing momentum as some of the "nine old men" began to retire or die, President Roosevelt having gotten no appointments in his first term.
The piece indicates that the Court would change, as it had eventually in the latter 1930's, more toward the direction of the country, as the Court had maintained its prestige through time by continuing to be in step with the "conscience of the average citizen". It suggests that individual Justices had faults, as reflected in some of their decisions, and there had been some political appointees to the Court who had too little knowledge of the law and too little experience on the bench, but that those were faults of men and not of the Court, itself, with the remedy being better appointments and more careful consideration by the Senate in confirming those appointments.
"Over the years the court has kept remarkably well in touch with the main stream of national life, never being for long a captive of any particular view or group. The best evidence of that is that its critics now were its defenders in the 30's and its critics then its defenders now. Congress has means to change the effect of the court's decisions without trying to change the nature of the court. It should depend on those means, keeping the faith with its own precedent of the 30's."
"Keep Residential Zones Fully Protected" tells of the City Council having delayed a decision during the week on whether to permit funeral homes to operate within areas zoned for residential development. The change would produce a flow of day and night traffic burdensome to residential neighborhoods.
After having indicated earlier that a decision would be rendered on the matter the previous day, the Council had deferred action, which it finds unfortunate, as good zoning needed to be clearly drawn based on professional advice. While deviation from the zoning ordinance would not destroy the whole program in the city, it would weaken the fabric in an important area and it hopes that the Council would act without delay and in such a way to provide protection to the community for its best development.
"The Man Who Was So Very Right" tells of the death of Thomas J. Watson, chairman of the board of IBM and one of the nation's most colorful industrialists. It indicates that it was saddened by the loss as it had awakened memories of a day in 1946 when Mr. Watson had come to Charlotte with his wife and told the newspaper that the Southeastern states, including the Carolinas, would lead the nation in actual and diversified progress during the ensuing 20 years.
J. A. Daly of The News had passed the information along to readers and the editors of several leading business publications and it had been noticed by many. A year later, Mr. Watson had returned to Charlotte and he had then told the newspaper that the publicity given his remarks the previous year had produced much comment and some protests from economic sources throughout the country. At that time, he said that he remained of the same opinion.
It indicates that the Southeast had grown amazingly and was still expanding at an impressive rate. It does not know how much influence Mr. Watson's remarks had on that progress, but IBM had begun expanding its operations in the area immediately, and other companies producing business machines also began to show more attention to the Southeast. Industrial, commercial and financial progress had tremendously expanded the markets for business machines, especially in the Carolinas, and had also therefore influenced other phases of the economy.
It concludes that Mr. Watson had dared to tell something about the region and he had been quite correct.
A piece from the Twin City Sentinel of Winston-Salem, titled "In Any Language, a Good Idea", quotes from the Science News Letter that one could read Interlingua if the person had no more than a semester of high school French, Spanish or Latin and had flunked it. It then proceeds to quote a sample paragraph, the first sentence of which reads: "In phocas e leones marin le masculo ejice a certe tempores un dulce odor que pare attraher le femininas."
It says that it had assembled persons who had studied French, Spanish or Latin for several years in high school and college to determine tentatively what the subject of the paragraph, Dr. J. E. Hamilton, had supposedly discovered, indicating its tentative translation but that perhaps those who had a semester of high school French and had flunked it could do better.
You may attempt on your own to figure out the first sentence without seeing the tentative translation. Suffice it to say, Interlinqua has never caught on as an international language, except perhaps, as evidenced by many YouTube comments, among flunkies.
Drew Pearson indicates that the unofficial but potent coalition between Republicans and Southern Democrats which had dominated Congress for years, had been broken during the previous week in the House Rules Committee, regarding the school construction and civil rights bills. After the voting in which Republicans had sided with Northern Democrats to force immediate action on the school bill and on civil rights, Congressman Bill Colmer of Mississippi said that he was hurt by the bipartisan coalition. Democratic Congressman Ray Madden of Indiana replied: "You boys from Mississippi should recollect when the shoe was on the other foot. For years the Republicans have played footsie with you boys from Dixie. Sure there's been a division in court. We used to be way out in right field watching, but now we're in there playing the game." He had gone on to point out that the old coalition had for long blocked labor, education and civil rights legislation.
The coalition had been broken by the fact that the Republicans were seeking black votes in large Northern cities, with the change having occurred when Minority Leader Joseph Martin passed along the word that four Republican members of the Committee would vote with blacks to unbottle the civil rights and school bills from the Committee. When that switch had been made known, Democratic Congressman Richard Bolling of Kansas City had moved that the Committee enter closed session to consider acting on certain matters which were pending, including civil rights, working as a direct challenge to the chairman, Howard Smith of Virginia, who said that he took offense at the maneuver, while Mr. Colmer called it "the most brazen action that I have ever seen," asking Mr. Bolling whether he considered himself to be the new chairman. The latter responded that he only wished to bring the issue to action, while Mr. Madden said that the school bill had been in the Committee languishing for months and that if the same thing happened with the civil rights bill, the Committee would not finish with it until mid-July at the point when the leadership was planning to adjourn.
Mr. Pearson indicates that the wrangling continued for another 45 minutes, with Mr. Smith pleading for an informal meeting instead of a formal session, so that a vote on the bills could be avoided. But Mr. Bolling continued to insist on a formal meeting and a showdown vote, and when the Committee met secretly during the afternoon, Mr. Bolling had proposed an additional day of hearings on the school bill followed by a final vote, and then two days of hearings on the civil rights bill followed by a final vote, and he had won on both issues.
Walter Lippmann examines the recent conference in Washington between Secretary of State Dulles and West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who had visited to achieve a renewed commitment of support from the U.S. regarding the West German Government policy of demanding reunification of Germany along with continued membership in NATO as conditions for any agreement with the Soviets regarding arms limitations or other issues. Chancellor Adenauer needed that reaffirmation to shore up his waning support at home with an election looming the following year. He was receiving heavy criticism from all sides of the political spectrum, including within his moderate Christian Democratic Party, primarily for his persisting adherence to the policy for which he was seeking support from the U.S.
He came away with that reaffirmation of support from Secretary Dulles, which Mr. Lippmann views as a large mistake from two leaders unwilling to change to a policy better adapted to the changing conditions within the Soviet Union vis-à-vis the West and neutral states. For in that policy was a foregone conclusion that the Soviets would not accept any such deal, something which the Western leaders understood, as did the West Germans. Thus, pursuant to that policy, Germany would remain divided, as the Soviets desired, with the agreement between Mr. Dulles and Chancellor Adenauer making it as easy as possible for the Russians to refuse negotiation while Dr. Adenauer remained in power in West Germany.
Meanwhile, a growing number of West Germans believed that they could not rearm within NATO while also inducing the Soviets to abandon East Germany, leading to a loss of confidence in the leadership of Chancellor Adenauer. Mr. Lippmann asserts that if the U.S. were not careful, the American connection with Germany could become a party issue in which it was identified with the political future of Chancellor Adenauer. Nevertheless, Secretary Dulles and Chancellor Adenauer both believed in adhering to the same policy which had been extant during the Stalin era and prior to the development of the hydrogen bomb, because they were at a dead-end and both were concerned that if they conceded any ground to the Soviets, dire results might occur. Furthermore, Secretary Dulles was so accustomed to Chancellor Adenauer and being committed to him that he did not wish to deal with any other West German leader who might defeat him in the election. Thus, the hope had not been that there would actually be a reunification of Germany but rather that the old routine policy might still work well enough at least to get Chancellor Adenauer re-elected in 1957.
Mr. Lippmann indicates that there was no predicting how much the agreement would help Chancellor Adenauer, but it was clear that it had not produced anything to reinvigorate the Western alliance, with the Chancellor indicating that he considered the new tactics of the Soviet Union more dangerous than the previous aggressive conduct, without any indication as to how he would change to meet the new and more dangerous tactics. That was not a method to encourage the confidence of democratic nations looking for wise and resourceful leadership, rather appearing to be abdication of leadership by "old and tired men".
If things continued as had the Washington talks, the troubles of the Western alliance would become increasingly worse until it would crumble from a lack of dynamic change.
"The challenge put forth by post-Stalinist Russia is immense, and the Western world is in a desperate need of statesmen to show the way and to lead it on. It may well turn into a tragedy of historic proportions that in none of the capitals of the big powers of the Western world is the right government with the vision to see and the energy to act—that the leadership of the West is in the hands of preoccupied and harried men in London, of weak and distracted men in Paris, of a very old man in Bonn, and of a sick man in Washington."
Robert C. Ruark, in Palamos, Spain, believes it was time to rewrite the penal codes to identify what was crime and what was punishment, pointing out that a Chinese defendant charged with narcotics violations had his case dismissed on the motion of the judge after the defendant had pleaded guilty, that two convicts had studied law while serving their sentences and had managed to obtain releases after being sentenced for narcotics violations, having argued that at the time of their arrest, there had been a 13-day lapse before the law they were accused of violating had actually gone into effect, and that a drunk had run over an elderly pedestrian and killed him, was arrested on the scene for drunk driving and negligent operation of an automobile leading to death but had the charges dismissed as there had been no witnesses to the incident. In the latter case, New York Judge Samuel Leibowitz had been forced to dismiss an indictment during the third day of trial when the prosecution had been unable to produce witnesses, as in New York a law specified that it was insufficient for conviction to show that the operator of the vehicle was intoxicated without there having been eyewitnesses. The Judge had said from the bench that there had to be enacted new laws to keep up with modern times.
Mr. Ruark indicates that "a murderer is a murderer, no matter what happened in the fine print of the indictment" and until someone explained to him any differently, such legal technicalities should not be grounds for dismissing cases against defendants, when it was obvious that the defendant had committed the charged offense. "He either did or he didn't, and it doesn't make any actual difference if he was arrested by dwarfs in Disneyland, when he actually should have been collected by Gary Cooper, in Bad Hat, Mont."
But, actually, it does make a huge difference, for if states do not follow the letter of their statutes or the requirements of the Constitution in obtaining criminal convictions, then all respect for the law ultimately will break down and every citizen will be at risk of being accused and convicted without due process.
There are people who set themselves up as cheering squads, especially in an age with televised trials, for one side or the other, thus acquiring a personal stake in the outcome, though they have little or no knowledge of the applicable law, have no association with the individual defendant on trial or the alleged victim, and have little more than a passing acquaintance with the evidence in the case and no appreciation for how the law and applicable intructions of the court treat that evidence, reaching in consequence uninstructed conclusions based largely on that gleaned from some courtroom sitcom masquerading as drama which they have viewed on tv for years in the past in which the audience is made aware of who is in fact guilty and who is not, all neatly tied in a bow with no loose ends by the end of an hour. Such emotive identification with one side or the other is quite unhealthy, as it breeds contempt ultimately for the law when the "wrong side" wins or when the rules are not followed in order to achieve a conviction to satisfy the hungry mob outside the courthouse, a kind of lynch mob mentality reminiscent of frontier days. That serves no positive purpose or interest, certainly not that of justice and fairness to all appearing before the bar of justice. Nor does it serve any interest to engage in obloquy and hurl billingsgate toward the attorneys for the side against which the individual decides he or she is rooting as a fan and heap praise upon the other side's counsel, no matter how mediocre or commonplace the presentation might actually be in terms of any objective criticism by anyone with experience in and knowledge of the legal system, only demonstrating complete ignorance of the individual making such absurd and childish comments, as if rooting in a football or basketball game for one's chosen side. The criminal justice system is not a sporting event. It is not a high school popularity contest. If we choose to root for anything, it should be for the prevailing of objective justice and fairness under the applicable law and Constitutional requirements in every trial and for proper and effective legal representation for both sides.
A letter from Solicitor Basil Whitener of Gastonia, running for the Democratic nomination for Congress in the 11th District to succeed retiring Congressman Woodrow Jones, indicates that since he had challenged his opponent to a public debate in several courthouses of the Congressional district on June 11, WBTV had advised that they desired to telecast the debates as a public service, and he had consented to appear. But his campaign had now been informed by the television station that the opponent in the race had declined to participate, having stated that he believed it was Mr. Whitener's desire to use him to get a crowd to hear his own positions. He indicates that such was obviously one of his purposes, as it would be of his opponent also. He also suggests that it might be the desire of people to see why a person who had been away so long from the district wanted to represent it in Congress. He indicates that his campaign did not have the $29,000 which his opponent reported spending during the initial primary and believed that a public discussion of the issues in joint debate would better serve the cause of democracy than vast expenditures of money in the runoff primary.
A letter writer indicates that those who had cast their ballots in the first primary for a particular candidate must have felt that the County School Board needed new blood, and so he asks that they cast their vote for the man who had led the ticket, Dan Hood, whom he believes had done much good in the past and was still active at present in "making better boys of bad ones". He urges being wary of the "stagnant breeze that is in circulation by letter" and that for the facts, the voters should get a card of Dan Hood.
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.