The Charlotte News
Monday, June 25, 1956
THREE EDITORIALS
Site Ed. Note: The front page reports that the President had decided this date to visit Panama City on July 21-22 for a meeting with the presidents of the other American countries but to postpone talks with India's Prime Minister Nehru, originally scheduled for July 7-10. The President had been scheduled to be in Panama City at present for the Pan American conference with the other presidents but was unable to attend because of his continued recuperation from his June 8 surgery for ileitis. White House press secretary James Hagerty told a press conference at Walter Reed Army Hospital that the President had sent definite word to the Government of Panama that he accepted the invitation for later in July. Prime Minister Nehru had sought a postponement of his visit to the U.S. so as not to place additional strain on the President's convalescence, and the President had said in reply that he was certain the Prime Minister would not want to visit only for a round of official ceremonies and for his visit to have meaning, it should be postponed. It was also announced that the President would convalesce at his farm home at Gettysburg after checking out of the hospital late during the current week.
Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson said this date that General Nathan Twining, chief of staff of the Air Force, in the latter's comments to Russian leaders during his Moscow visit to attend the Soviet air show, had pointed to the need for more funding for the Air Force than sought by the President. Senator Johnson said that he was "highly impressed" by the remarks made by General Twining, seeming to make it clear to the Communists that the U.S. had no intention of backing down on its plans for preparedness, indicating that the best way to strengthen the leaders of the country was to appropriate sufficient strength to the Air Force.
In Atlantic City, N.J., New York Governor Averell Harriman, a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, said this date that the Administration had given the nation "the reputation of being warlike". The statement was promptly challenged by Maryland Governor Theodore McKeldin, a Republican, as part of the 48th annual Governors Conference. The main remarks at the conference dealt with problems in education. Both Governors had appeared on an NBC television panel discussion, presumably "Meet the Press" the prior day, with Governor Harriman stating that the Administration was dominated by big business, "looking at the dollar sign" and demanding that people around the world do things at the behest of the U.S., thereby gaining a reputation of being warlike, when the American people were the most peace-loving in the world. He quoted Secretary of State Dulles as saying "there is no peace anywhere, only an unstable peace." He said that the Administration had "tried to fool the American people, and by doing so, they have fooled many people around the world." Governor McKeldin responded that if the present was war for Americans, he hoped it would continue indefinitely, "because none of our boys are being shot at in the battlefield anywhere in the world, thanks to the Eisenhower Administration." Governor A. B. "Happy" Chandler of Kentucky said in an interview that Democrats would be hard-pressed to stave off Republican bids for two Senate seats in Kentucky and its ten electoral votes, assuming the President continued in the race, stating that while there was disaffection among farmers from the Administration, the President remained just as popular personally as he had been in 1952. Governor Chandler considered himself to be a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Governor Frank Clement of Tennessee said that he was certain that the President would not carry Tennessee again, and Governor Harriman said that the Democrats could carry New York only if they had a strong candidate and a strong platform.
In Portsmouth, N.H., Fleet Admiral Ernest King, 77, who had led the Navy to victory in World War II, had deteriorated during the night after being stricken with a heart ailment early the previous day and suffering from circulatory and respiratory failure. A bulletin issued in the morning said that he continued in a state of shock and coma and was not responding to the maximum dosage of digitalis, therapy or other measures, with the outlook being grave. His son, a lieutenant commander in the Navy, who had flown from Washington to be at his father's bedside, said that it was not a heart attack but rather heart failure brought on by high blood pressure and that his father had not been in good health for some time. Admiral King had taken over as commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet just two weeks after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and three months later was named chief of Naval Operations, responsible for directing Naval activities and answerable directly to President Roosevelt and Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox. He was the first man ever to hold the position of commander in chief and chief of Naval Operations simultaneously. Navy historians credited him with lifting the Navy "off its back" after the Pearl Harbor attack and leading it to repeated victories.
In Cairo, Premier Gamal Abdel Nasser, president-elect, promised this date that his Government would be "defenders of the Constitution and the defenders of right", indicating that Egypt had crushed colonialists and would support "whoever believes in our aims and principles", speaking to a crowd congratulating him on being chosen the first President of the Egyptian Republic. The well-wishers included the Soviet Ambassador to Egypt. Premier Nasser had been the only candidate on the ballot in the election the prior Saturday and had received the approval of more than 90 percent of the voters.
In Norfolk, the former officer of an embezzlement-wrecked financial institution had been sentenced this date to serve 20 years in prison, receiving ten years for embezzlement of more than a million dollars and another ten years for giving false information to the State Corporation Commission of Virginia, with the two sentences to run consecutively. He also imposed concurrent sentences of two years each on eight indictments charging forgery and two others charging false information, plus an additional charge alleging embezzlement of $17,000. Three other indictments which charged embezzlement of a total of 2.9 million dollars were dropped on the motion of the prosecutor. The defendant had been a highly respected and long-noted benefactor of family and friends. She had pleaded guilty on May 21 to 12 indictments arising from shortages of almost three million dollars, which had wrecked a building and loan association. A week earlier, a jury had convicted her for making false financial reports to the Corporation Commission and she was sentenced to ten years in prison on that charge, which was included in the sentencing of this date.
Julian Scheer of The News reports that Ralph Gardner of Shelby had conceded to Gastonia's Basil Whitener in the 11th District Congressional race, Mr. Whitener having won by 1,106 votes out of the 43,000 cast in the Democratic runoff primary on Saturday. Mr. Gardner had won the initial primary, but neither of the two leading candidates had scored a majority. The Republicans had put forth no candidate for the November general election. Mr. Whitener would succeed Congressman Woodrow Jones who was retiring. It is not reported who had won the lottery for $100 at the Cherryville service station, put on by a supporter of Mr. Whitener, though with no indication that it was done with the support of the candidate. Mr. Gardner had threatened to report the matter to the Congressional credentials committee, potentially challenging the right of Mr. Whitener, heretofore the local Solicitor in the judicial district including Charlotte, to occupy the seat. Charlotte, however, was in the 10th Congressional District, served by Congressman Charles Jonas, the only Republican in the North Carolina delegation.
Ann Sawyer of The News reports of an afternoon of creek sniffing scheduled by members of the County Commission, planning to talk with managers of industrial plants which were polluting Little Hope Creek. The tour and conferences had been scheduled after a resident of Madison Park had told the Commission at their weekly meeting that the creek "stinks and stinks bad." He had described the odors from dyestuffs and animal acid as so bad that it was making people sick. The City-County Health officer, Dr. M. B. Bethel, who would join the tour, was aware of the problem and stated that there was no law to make the companies take remedial action, that if there had been, his department would have done so long earlier. He told the Commission that he did not think a "self-respecting mosquito would go near that stuff." Well, if so, at least it keeps down the mosquitoes and thus the threat of a malarial epidemic or an outbreak of encephalitis. Ergo, the firms polluting the creek were actually performing a public service while contributing to local payrolls.
In Amsterdam, smiling pictures of the Dutch royal couple had blossomed on the front pages of Holland's newspapers this date, but in West Germany, Hamburg's Der Spiegel had adduced a new report of domestic trouble between Queen Juliana and her husband, Prince Bernhard, indicating that the latter might leave the Dutch court unless it was friendlier to his mother, German Princess Armgard Zur Lippe-Biesterfeld, the magazine claiming that the Princess had not been "too well received" at the Dutch court in the past. A high source at the Palace called the report "nonsense". Well, someone better get to the bottom of that story fast, as it promises to be world-shattering, no doubt, possibly giving spark to World War III. World War I, after all, arose from no less of such an internecine conflict. Beware an assassination in Sarajevo. Thus spake Zarathustra...
On the editorial page, "Lapses in Leadership Are Costly" indicates that unless there was a last-minute reversal of form, the President would have to regard the current session of Congress as the least cooperative of his 3 1/2 years in office. According to Congressional Quarterly, the President had sent 217 requests for legislation and only 34 of them had thus far been approved, with a large part of the problem having been that the President could not or would not fully back his own program.
It points out that when the current 84th Congress had convened for its second session in January, the President had been still recuperating from his September 24 heart attack and that when it had reached its most crucial stage in early June, the President had been stricken with ileitis, thus in no condition at critical stages to provide personal leadership. When he had gone to bat aggressively for an issue, as with the farm legislation he sought, he had been remarkably successful, able to be vigorously persuasive when he wanted to be.
It indicates it was not suggesting that had the President been more persuasive, he could have achieved a near-perfect score on his legislation, as both chambers of the Congress had Democratic majorities and it was an election year. In addition, parts of his program, such as Federal aid to education, were receiving objection from unpersuadable members of both parties. But it finds that had the President battled more, he would have a better batting average.
It finds Walter Lippmann's piece of the prior Friday, indicating that there was no substitute in the American system of government for a strong President in full possession of his powers, to be persuasive. The President, in the words of former President Woodrow Wilson, had to be "the spokesman for the real sentiment and purpose of the country." Congress and the nation looked to him for vigorous leadership and no other person, no matter how competent or loyal, could really speak and act with the authority and influence of a President.
It quotes former President William Howard Taft, after he had departed the White House in 1913, that the Constitution did give the President wide discretion and great power, as it ought to do, asking of him activity and energy to see that he did what his great responsibilities and opportunities required, that the President was no figurehead.
It finds it vain to argue that the country had fared just as well with the President incapacitated as when he was hail and hearty, with the absence of his close direction of policy reflected in both domestic and foreign affairs, but most of all, in the record of Congress.
"Stevenson and the Infinite Mystery" indicates that the Richmond News Leader had recently sniffed out an "infinite mystery" in the varied political views of the supporters of Adlai Stevenson, finding, with some horror, that among the latter's friends were Southern conservatives and Northern liberals, included in the former group Virginia Congressman Howard Smith, former Governor John Battle and former Florida Governor Millard Caldwell, while in the latter group were Eleanor Roosevelt, Senator Hubert Humphrey, and Senator Herbert Lehman. The News Leader could not understand the phenomenon, asserting that "something is wrong here somewhere."
It finds it simple, that all of the supporters of Mr. Stevenson were Democrats who found a quality in the party larger than individual differences and looked for a similar quality in a leader, which they believed they had found in Mr. Stevenson. The quality had to be a determination to serve the interests of all while denying the rights of no one, seeking common ground. It indicates that the News Leader had nearly seen the light by saying that either the liberals or the conservatives were cherishing an illusion of what Mr. Stevenson truly represented, the piece finding that both sides were cherishing illusions and that both believed Mr. Stevenson was a reasonable man and that being such, would agree with the compelling reasoning advanced by both sides, finding that to be silly thinking and that the logical French knew better, finding a separate political party for every nuance of view possible and choosing party leaders precisely attuned to each such nuance. There were no illusions but often no government either, though it was all very logical.
It finds that the illusion of which the News Leader complained was nothing less than the fabric of the nation, with Americans believing that no matter how bitter their differences were, they could work them out through leaders not bound to either side of the argument. It agrees that it was an infinite mystery and one which worked "wonderfully well".
It might have noted that another part leading to the Richmond newspaper's conclusion of the "infinite mystery" was that its editor at the time was James Kilpatrick, who regarded virtually everything not "conservative", that is anything more advanced than the antebellum period, to be confounding and utterly radical—much as do most of the Trumpies regard things today, not just predicting a "civil war", but actively courting and wanting one, to give them excuse to impose martial law, or as one of the prime contemporary advocates of secession and civil war would call it, "marshal law", apparently to be imposed by Hair Marshal Trump. They only regard as impeachable those gross offenses supposed by rumor to have been committed by Democrats while all Republicans, out to save the world and the nation from the horrors of the Communist-Socialist Democrats, are justified in their means by their ends, which tend to govern their mouths and minds because they consume so much of the product of their ends in a constant dog-chase of their tails. No need for any basis for impeachment except to get even, to distract from the four-times indicted "leader" of their party, increasingly resemblant, in fact, to Der Fuehrer, only needing a published manifesto titled "My Struggle" to make the comparison complete.
We read recently a comment on YouTube, one often voiced among the callow, that since the two primary parties cannot resolve the country's problems, it ought have four or five parties vying for the presidency. To such persons, we urge careful study of the French postwar multi-party system which led to consistent chaos and near financial and political collapse, to which the piece alludes.
Moreover, because of the ingrained tradition since 1856 of the current two-party system, and a tradition practically established since the Founding of two major parties vying for public office, with the attendant local and state organizations established around the two major parties and the resulting trickle-down patronage, as a practical matter the only thing a third party does, even when very well organized as in the case of Ross Perot in 1992 and Congressman John Anderson in 1980, and to a lesser degree, the combined effect of the polar opposite candidacies of former Vice-President Henry Wallace and South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond in 1948, is to divide the vote of the party most nearly akin to the positions espoused by the third-party candidate, resulting either in a plurality victory, as in 1992, or one brought into some question, as in the case in the determinatively narrow Florida victory of Governor George W. Bush in 2000, with the vote for former Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchanan, along with other factors, having considerably muddied the result, though more the fault of the controversial, confusing "butterfly" ballot in Palm Beach County than the actual candidacy of Mr. Buchanan in that instance. A case might also be made that the George Wallace vote in 1968 shifted away conservative Democrats who might have resignedly voted for Vice-President Hubert Humphrey and thus gave a narrow victory to Richard Nixon, but that is a hard case to make as the segregationist views of Governor Wallace were predominant in the minds of those casting their lot with him, the exact opposite politics to those of Vice-President Humphrey, who had introduced the controversial civil rights plank at the Democratic convention in 1948 when he first ran for the Senate, endorsed at the time by actor Ronald Reagan. In any event, third parties, which tend to gravitate around the personality of one person and then fade into oblivion when that person drops from voter awareness for one reason or another, have never been effective except occasionally as spoilers, with the aim of the Dixiecrats, for instance, in 1948, having been simply to make a reactionary point against the civil rights plank of the Democratic platform and hopefully to divide the Democratic vote to throw the election into the House where, at the time, Southern Democrats had great power for controlling key committee chairmanships, with the purpose of being able to increase their power over the Presidency, epecially regarding civil rights and curbing of non-military Federal spending, by deciding the outcome, even if, in fact, it was at the time, given the polls, more likely to seal election for Governor Thomas Dewey, who was quite as liberal on civil rights and other social issues as President Truman.
There is no perfect answer or system. But to try to create a
dictatorship, as the Trumpies clearly want, is not only not an answer
but a sure path to destruction ultimately of the country, just as was the case with Nazi Germany and the Confederacy of 1861-65. No one has
ever had for long absolute freedom, for in that, inevitably, is
inherent the denial of all freedom to others in disagreement, not a
viable state of affairs through time. Trumpies need to learn the
first lesson of democracy, that the candidate who tallies the largest
number of votes in a given election wins for the specified term of office and one must then wait until the next election,
hoping in the meantime that his or her viewpoint might receive
greater support going forward, perhaps, in the meantime, modifying that viewpoint to accord more the
majority trend toward moderation
"Check That 'Murillo' Again, Boys" indicates that the North Carolina Art Commission, which had been deeply concerned in 1954 regarding the authenticity of a painting attributed to Bartolome Murillo, which it had purchased for a mere $6,500, ought to maintain its skepticism well-honed, as never had the market been better for fake works of art.
Fritz Mendax, in his Art Fakes
and Forgeries, had indicated that the sucker list
There had been a postwar yarn about an art lover who was anxious to smuggle a Velasquez from Germany and painted Hitler's portrait over it, figuring that he would have no trouble getting it past the Nazi guards. While he was able to do so, the restorer, while removing Hitler's portrait, had gone right through the supposed Velasquez only to find a portrait of Benito Mussolini. But Mr. Mendax in his book had related the original story, that a Frenchman had purchased a portrait in Venice, dated 1520, attributed to Pietro Perugino, one of the last of the Old Masters, and so that he could get it across the frontier without trouble, had a portrait of Victor Emmanuel III painted over it, which had worked. But the restorer had not only removed the countenance of the King but had also left no trace of the supposed underlying masterpiece, revealing beneath it a portrait of Giuseppe Garibaldi.
It concludes: "Now, for another look at that little old Murillo."
A piece from the Christian Science Monitor, titled "Note on Straphanging", indicates that when streetcars had gone the way of the wind, so had the straps and the hangers from them, at least St. Louis was so finding as it continued to replace electric trolleys with buses. But St. Louis had found, along with many other cities, that its buses were increasingly becoming overcrowded, and so it had brought back the strap, though finding that those who were standing were relying instead on grabbing seat backs, stanchions, each other, anything other than the strap. It suggests that the art of straphanging evidently had been lost.
It posits that those who continued to grasp straps on Boston and New York subways would no doubt scoff at the spoiled riders of St. Louis. "Let them beware, however. For there is another explanation possible. Exponents of Darwinian theories and the like may deduce that St. Louisans, perhaps, are but farther removed from arboreal ancestors, the instinct to hang from limbs now too faint to serve them."
Drew Pearson looks at the President's health and whether the American people were receiving the true facts about it, after many conflicting statements by distinguished doctors, some of whom were at the top of their profession, regarding ileitis, resulting in confusion of the public and possibly of the President, himself. He reviews various health incidents in the President's life and the public statements about them by his personal physician, Maj. General Howard Snyder, and White House press secretary James Hagerty.
On August 4, 1953, a statement had been released by Mr. Hagerty denying that the President had high blood pressure, despite Kay Summersby, the British WAC who had been General Eisenhower's secretary during the war, having written in a 1948 book, Eisenhower Was My Boss, that he had been inclined to suffer from high blood pressure and neuritis in his shoulder, had severe headaches and complained about his blood pressure. Mr. Pearson indicates that the neuritis had since been diagnosed as bursitis and still persisted, while the high blood pressure contributed to the heart condition.
In May, 1952, just prior to General Eisenhower having resigned as supreme commander of NATO to return home to run for the Republican nomination, he had suffered a ten-day bout with what was probably ileitis. Several prominent Republicans had been present in Paris to prepare him for the Republican campaign but were told that he was busy with final plans concerning the defense of Europe and could not see anyone. But in fact at the time, he was running a high fever and was delirious, talking of moving troops and calling General Staff meetings, as if back in World War II. Meanwhile the press, not knowing of his illness, wanted to hold a farewell press conference, the high-ranking Republicans were getting restless and General Matthew Ridgway, who would take over the NATO command, was soon to arrive, necessitating a public appearance by General Eisenhower. A French specialist had been called in to assist Dr. Snyder, and the former took the General off of antibiotics, rendering him able to ride to the airport to welcome General Ridgway, though wearing dark glasses. His car had been rushed to the privacy of a hangar immediately afterward to let the General rest. The incident had never been revealed to the public but had been known to the doctors who had pronounced him fit from "head to toe".
On the prior September 24, at the time of the President's heart attack in Denver, Dr. Snyder had first announced that the President had suffered a "digestive upset", followed, four hours later, by an announcement that he had suffered from "indigestion". Mr. Pearson indicates that it was natural for the doctor to have suspected indigestion, because the President had a long history of ileitis, having occurred not only in Paris four years earlier but also in Key West and several times in Washington. Later in the day, it had been admitted that Dr. Snyder had noted the "first symptom" of a heart attack very early that morning, though calling it a "digestive upset" some five hours later at around 8:00 a.m.
On February 15, 1956, immediately after Dr. Paul White's prediction that the President could carry on for "5 to 10 years" of active life, Dr. Samuel Levine of the Harvard Medical School had challenged that anyone could predict a heart patient's life expectancy, at which point Dr. White agreed and pointed out that he had hedged his own prediction with such qualifying terms as "uncertainties of the future", "chances", and "should". Mr. Pearson notes that the public, however, had not taken notice of the fine print.
On the prior May 12, when the President had been given a complete physical examination, he had been pronounced in splendid condition with not a word about his long history of stomach upsets, now being called ileitis.
Stewart Alsop, in a letter to brother Joseph traveling abroad, informs that the President's second illness in nine months was overshadowing the domestic political scene, with the question being refrained as to whether he would continue to run. He imparts that there was a difference between the current speculation and that in the aftermath of his September 24 heart attack, in that at present, there was not the mounting speculation that he would run again, rather perhaps the reverse. While the Republican high command expressed absolute confidence that the President would continue to run and would so announce very soon, of vital importance to them, White House press secretary James Hagerty had stated that the President had provided no hint yet of his intentions, leading Mr. Alsop to conclude that perhaps there was some wishful thinking involved in the optimism of Republican leaders.
Coronary thrombosis and ileitis were serious diseases and both carried the risk of recurrence, compounded in the case of the President, who had suffered both. He indicates that a few days earlier, he had received a letter from an insurance executive which stated that the President was not an insurable risk on any basis because of the heart attack, that his expectation of life, based on mortality tables, was about 4.3 years, with life expectancy after the attack of ileitis being about 3.54 years, indicating he did not know what the combination of factors produced. But, the letter went on, the President would receive more than normal care, concluding, however, with the question whether, if unacceptable as an insurance risk, would he be acceptable as a candidate for the presidency.
Mr. Alsop notes that it was painful to write in such cold statistical terms about the life expectancy of a well-loved person, but that when the office of the Presidency was involved, as the brothers Alsop had earlier agreed, the risk that its occupant might die in office or become incapacitated had to be considered. He adds that there was always such a risk with anyone as all were mortal, but that it was irresponsible to pretend that the risk was not especially great in the case of the President, though perhaps one worth taking.
He indicates that the two brothers had been critical of the Administration, particularly regarding defense, noting the recent testimony before the committee chaired by Senator Stuart Symington regarding the lag in air defense vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, but also noting that Joseph Alsop had written at the time of the President's heart attack that his "greatest single contribution has been bringing us all back to a sense of true American style." Mr. Alsop suggests that great risks might be worth taking to continue that contribution, and that a candidate for the presidency did not necessarily have to be an acceptable insurance risk. But he also indicates that he had been angered by the attempt to propagate the myth that the President was already in fine shape and had his hands firmly on the reins of government in the wake of the serious operation he had undergone for ileitis, with those around him having even suggested that the resulting vacation had been good for him. Where so much was at stake, the facts had to be faced and, as the President was recuperating in the hospital, he was surely facing them squarely.
A letter writer finds timely the editorial, "Charlotte Culture: Season in Retrospect", indicating agreement that there was much from which to find satisfaction in the previous season, but also finding that it was more important to buckle down to providing an even higher measure of quality for the year ahead. He indicates that while the departure of Melvin Sipe from the Charlotte Opera Association to the State of Washington had dealt local culture a blow, they had acquired in his stead the talented Henry Janiec as musical director. He indicates that Mr. Janiec had bachelor and master of music degrees from Oberlin Conservatory of Music in Ohio and had appeared as a concert pianist at Carnegie Hall, as well as having studied conducting under Kessler, Jean Paul Morel and Leonard Bernstein. He also had been guest conductor for the Boston Pops Orchestra, the massed choruses at the Industrial Festival of Choirs in Passaic, N. J., and had conducted the world premiere performance of "The Rope", an opera by Minnini. He was presently on the staff of Converse College in South Carolina as assistant professor of piano and conducting and had also been conductor of the Spartanburg Symphony Orchestra since 1952. He thus applauds the choice.
A letter from Rock Hill, S.C., tells of Raoul Wallenberg, of a distinguished Swedish banking family, having arrived in Nazi-controlled Budapest in 1944, selected to rescue as many Jews as he could from the Nazis. At the time, there were 300,000 Jews in Budapest, and American and Swedish leaders had planned to rescue all Jews from Hungary via a protective passport, which Hungarian Nazis reluctantly had accepted because of the realization that the war was turning against Germany and that the day of reckoning was nigh. With the help of the Swedish Red Cross, Mr. Wallenberg had worked with underground Zionist groups to establish several centers for Jewish children, saving at least 8,000 children from death in concentration camps while operating under the protection of Sweden's international neutrality. In December, 1944, the Russian troops had surrounded and laid siege to Budapest, with mass murder of the remaining Jews being planned. Mr. Wallenberg, learning of that plan, reminded General Schmidtheuber that the death penalty would befall any German officer who went along with the plan, with the consequence that the General halted it. Four days before the Soviet troops had seized Budapest, Mr. Wallenberg had approached Russian Major Demchenko and asked for his help in releasing the Jews trapped in the city, and, to his amazement, had been placed under guard and had not been heard from since. The writer indicates that 1.6 million Swedish citizens had signed a petition demanding an answer regarding the whereabouts of Mr. Wallenberg and on a recent visit to the Kremlin, Sweden's Prime Minister had asked what had occurred to him, receiving no reply. He indicates that a monument erected by grateful thousands was called Wallenberg Building, part of the Budapest Central Hospital, and a busy thoroughfare in that city also bore his name, but regarding all questions of his whereabouts, the Russians had remained mum.
Not seen after January 17, 1945, the fate of Mr. Wallenberg has never been ascertained.
A letter writer indicates that the "jackassry" of an editorial against the recent attempts of lawyers to dignify courtroom procedures indicated to the writer that the newspaper's competitors had made greater inroads on their staff than he had imagined, that if the newspaper were to win any accolades for editorial writing in the future, it would only prove that "intelligence has temporarily fled the premises."
Framed Edition
Links-Date — Links-Subj.