The Charlotte News

Wednesday, December 28, 1938


Site Ed. Note: "The Face-Making Formula" indeed suggests a formula which we suspect has been used by statesmen of a particularly serpentine variety throughout recorded history--in fact, right up through 2001 and to the present. That is, when one does not have a domestic agenda, other than some one-hit wonder like "tax cut", to ballyhoo to all the little stooges who always jump when they hear those two (or is it one hyphenated?) words, or some similar catch-phrase such as "your right to own and possess guns" or "individual enterprise", regardless of whether their own, or more probably only their owners' and managers', pocketbooks will be affected, that One will likely jump to, to get those poll numbers rising, to some foreign agenda, whether real or cultivated, as in the case apparently of Monsieur Daladier in 1938. Get your base fired up with a common enemy, real or imagined, and, if need be, cultivate your common enemy with curried favor, and the rest will follow in terms of getting votes to maintain power, not for the purpose of public service but rather for the purpose of maintaining power for its own sake, to line one's pockets and those of one's pals who might take care of thou and thine later. "You come threaten us, so I can get my base solidified, stupid as they are to fall for this trick, wink-wink, and then I can give you what you want when the time comes, as it is obviously the only thing to do for the good of all France--in the rail car at Compeigne, eighteen months from now." Ah, yes. And, we reiterate, so it goes, we strongly suspect, putting the 2 and 2 and the 4 and 4 a little together, even now. Do you doubt it? Read a little.

A strange thing has happened to our world over time, since the 1930's, that era itself having been in response to the teens and twenties, always of course in a continuum of history. Yet, we posit, it is necessary to lead away from the mistakes of history and cut the cord of alienation and discord arising from its worst aspects, not merely continue to react to history and ignore the reactions of others. That strange thing, we observe, is that the Fascist powers who lost World War II, have from time to time moved to other countries, Latin America being a prime breeding ground, some African countries, some Asian countries, some Middle Eastern countries, though the latter appears to stem more often from a fundamentalist religious dogma than Fascism per se, though the effect is often the same, albeit often a politically Fascist force couching behind the religious front, using another's faith manipulatively to suggest its relationship to a particular governing regime, purely for parboiling stooge political support. And in reaction to these Fascist regimes have naturally come often populist movements of one sort or another, especially in Latin America, often identifying themselves with Communism or Marxism or socialism, sometimes for the purpose of acquiring arms, sometimes for the purpose of identifying with a political and economic process which is perceived as standing for redistribution of wealth, sometimes both. Then, NATO forces, primarily the United States, primarily under the aegis of the old C.I.A., before its revision in the mid-seventies, (though Colonel North's secret cadre in the basement, trading arms to Iran for money for Nicaraguan Contras, bypassed these restrictions and as part of the executive branch of government committed not only violations of the law but active treason, making an utter mockery of the law with impunity), would destabilize these forces in favor of the sustenance of the Fascist dictatorships, at least those economically friendly to the United States. Cuba in the 1950's stands as prime exemplar of this type of notion.

In any event, it is necessary in our view to understand this long term continuum of history through the past 75 years or so and to break the monotonous strain of time, this back and forth notion, of Fascism utilized to combat Socialism or Communism. Today, we do not hear much about Communism anymore. The -ism of the day, to drag the political stooges into the fold of a fascist-styled form of government, is Terrorism. Yes, terrorism is real, has been for some time. Terrorism in the United States, which went then by the term "sabotage" has been with us since the turn of the century when anarchists were at large, then Bolsheviks, then Nazis, then Communists, then a less defined Middle Eastern-Arabic definition of Terrorism came to be in the latter 1960's and has been with the United States, Great Britain, France, Israel and their economic interests abroad since that time. Ultimately, however, these are freakish acts, by design to chill, to scare us into complicity, that is to say implosion of our freedoms from within. And they are quite successful these days at it. We have reacted just as they would have us react, running scared, curtailing our freedoms, just as the Daladiers of our time in our government would like it, for the benefit of maintaining the high life, power, prestige, and personal pocketbooks.

Incidentally, for contrast, and for a demonstration of effective statesmanship in time of peril, for elucidation of what courage under political fire means, as well as an example of how a previous Administration will often set up an incoming one of the opposing party, exhorted in a binding political and military atmosphere to act or else be branded soft on this or that -ism, be it Communism or Terrorism, as with Bajia de los Cochinos in April, 1961, as with Somalia in early 1993, for instance, we include now the full remarks of President Kennedy to the students and faculty of the University of North Carolina on October 12, 1961, as well as some additional reportage of the event carried by The Charlotte News. Of course, sometimes, in some places, there were and are people who cannot understand the difference between humorous irony, as that displayed often by President Kennedy in his speeches--sorely too missing from most of our dry, humorless statesmen today--or as that displayed in the column by Cash below, "The Mightiest Soldier", and a serious discussion regarding, not making war on weak constituencies who pose no real danger to the security of a country, but rather fighting for peace and preserving that peace through all peaceful means. A favorite expression we always like to keep in mind from President Kennedy is that one where he said in his inaugural address, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Indeed, no truer words, in our estimation, have ever been spoken by any statesman at any time, save perhaps the equally cogent phrase from another inaugural address in time of peril, economic and its always necessary concomitant, political-military, in 1933, "The only thing we have to fear..." Neither phrase in our estimation was or is hollow rhetoric by politicians. Each rang then in its respective time, and each still continues to ring, true.

Speaking of contrast and hollow rhetoric, we have been watching the confirmation hearings of Justice-designate Samuel Alito. We must say we are less than overwhelmed. The Judge, sure enough, seems to have a command of his case law. He seems to be a decent man. But, we fear, from having had great experience with this type of legal mind, that he is one of those techno-lawyers, that is to say one who has a case precedent in his pocket for every single point he makes to a pre-established end game, much as a successful football coach has an established play book to move the ball down the field in every game. But, as often in that game of football, we fear the Judge has little creativity at his command to offer, little appreciation of the fairness of the whole setting of the game and how it fits into the rest of society--something which in our opinion is sine qua non for making an effective Justice of the highest court in the land.

Technical points may be fine at a Princeton debating society. They are of little use, as John Marshall taught it best, when trying to interpret the Constitution, not by word games or by name-games of cases or even holding watchwords in brief,--his describing the more recent limitations on Roe v. Wade as "undue burden analysis", without elaboration for the benefit of the public as to how that might impact a given state's statute in attempting to limit a woman's right of choice comes readily to mind--but rather by judicious, poetic, rational, intuitive, sensitive inquiry into the justice and fairness of a particular case, the resulting fairness and justice to the broad mass of people of this country, while respecting the decisions of previous courts in assessing ultimately those weighty issues of ultimate fairness to all.

Judge Alito seems to toss around words and phrases like "Federalism", the "rights of States", the "rights of individuals" more in the nature of debating points than with any real passion or respect for the notion that ultimately democratic governments by their nature, especially that of the United States, derive originally and periodically by election only from the vox populi, that is each and every single individual citizen comprising the governed. We are not subjects; we are not pawns; we are not mere words on a tablet to be memorized as "talking points"--as the gracious Republican Senators seeking his confirmation seem silverdunderplatedly and sophomorically to insist upon.

There is something most remarkable in that which Judge Alito said in his opening remarks day before yesterday regarding which we wish one of the Senators would inquire of him in some depth. He stated in passing, without any elaboration, that when he got to Princeton in the late 1960's as an undergraduate freshman, from his native Trenton twelve miles away, he saw very smart people "behaving irresponsibly". We should like to know with some precision what it was he saw which caused him to make this judgment. Was it the honest, conscientious objection to what most in this country now regard--and did increasingly at that time--as an unjust and unnecessary intervention into the affairs of another country on the false premise, and firmly discredited by history, of the domino theory, costing increasing numbers of loss of American life, some 28,000 in 1968-69 alone? Was it that? If so, we question Judge Alito's sensitivity and understanding of even so recent history as that through which he himself lived and to which therefore he ought be plentifully sensitive, as he, himself, of course, was a draft eligible American at the time.

If it is something else which caused him disturbance, such as the burning or bombing of buildings, the violent demonstration of will--none of which we are aware went on in those days at Princeton and so if so we might benefit from the ever-reprising of the lessons thus provided--then we would tend to agree with the Judge, that there are limits to expression when it comes to actual violence or yelling fire in a crowded theater, as Justice Holmes notably described the limit of First Amendment freedom, that is, creating a clear and present danger of violence by exhortation to violence reasonably apprehended as being a natural consequence of the act or utterance.

But was that going on in truth at Princeton then? What was it that the Judge saw or heard which caused him to feel that there were some very smart people "behaving irresponsibly"? That is what we should like to know.

Answering that simple inquiry might be elucidative of his sensitivity or not to the most precious right any of us have, a right under fire since September 11, 2001, the right of freedom of speech and thought, a right, as Thomas Jefferson viewed it, inextricably bound up with the same right under the First Amendment of freedom of religious belief, freedom of association, freedom peaceably and lawfully to assemble, freedom to petition the government for the redress of grievances, a right frequently and often fervently, but usually, we posit, especially on college campuses around the nation, exercised wholly responsibly, even if to the disdain of many Nixonian "conservatives", in the mid-1960's and beyond. Where does Judge Alito stand on this most critical period of our generation's--his generation's--history? That is what we should like to know.

His loss of memory of why he listed in a job application his membership of this C.A.P. alumni organization at Princeton, one which, unbeknownst to Judge Alito, despite apparent wide dissemination of the information at the time in 1985 in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere, expressed its belief that Princeton was becoming too open to co-educational revision, not enough open to alumni children, that is nepotistic admission to the Ivy League school, too open to minority advancement in faculty and administrative positions, and other such retrograde beliefs, retrograde especially for 1985, is troubling. Judge Alito asserts that he joined Cone-cerned Alumini of Princeton exclusively because he supported its position that R.O.T.C. should be allowed on campus, a position which the school had taken a stand against when he was an undergraduate in the early seventies. Yet, it appears that by 1973, this position was no longer taken by Princeton, and that by 1985, R.O.T.C. was again well established on campus. So, together with his other statements about the "irresponsible behavior" of some very smart people, there arise some troubling notions which require more thorough and thoughtful explanation, we believe, by the Judge.

These basic problems are far more troubling to us than how many case names and holdings Judge Alito can recite with facility from memory during these hearings. Most people not lawyers, and some who are, glaze over at much of this talk, especially when it is referenced in short-hand without contextual explanation. A diligent and competent jurist will always be able to look up cases in the books when the time comes in a given scenario of a given case. It may come as a shock to the public but few lawyers, and probably few judges, walk around with great reams of case names and case holdings in their heads, outside a particular focused area or two of the law where they have practiced for some time, or outside a particular case of the moment with which a judge or lawyer might have to deal. Supreme Court justices, hearing about 250 to 300 cases per year, have the relative luxury of time to do their research thoroughly and need not worry so much as other courts might about how many case names and holdings they might accumulate in their heads to sound impressive over long lunches. This, we fear, is the problem. A lack of sensitivity to the law, a rote accumulation of too much particularized law, squeezing out the necessary ability to think through the general principles in broader context, rationally, with the individual rights of each of us in mind, regardless of whether the four-corners of the facts of a particular case happen to dovetail nicely with a holding of this or that previous case.

As someone wise once said, you may, if you research hard enough, fairly well find a case to buttress whatever an opinion you might wish to venture as a jurist or as a lawyer. But that is not to say that, as a jurist, that is either a fair way or a proper way to proceed. It isn't.

No better example exists than that which came under questioning yesterday from Senator Leahy of Vermont when he asked Judge Alito to explain why it was that he had voted by way of dissenting opinion to uphold against a claim of Fourth Amendment violation for an unreasonable search, the strip search of ten-year old girl during the course of the execution of a search warrant on the house where the little girl and her parents resided. Judge Alito had a ready response. He said that he did not believe that such a search was desirable in the abstract but that he rendered his opinion on the basis of a "technicality", that he believed the supporting affidavit of the police officers seeking the warrant had adequately set forth the scope of search to encompass all persons on the premises of the house to be searched. For the outrageousness of this opinion, one must understand that it is well established that to be reasonable, a warrant must set forth with particularity the items, areas, and people to be searched, providing probable cause for the search of each such item or person. A warrant is typically based on written affidavits of police officers who likewise must set forth this type of particularity based on credible and particular information. Not enough to say that they suspect so 'n' so in that house over yonder of being a bad person and so we should be able to go search them out thoroughly--just as the British soldiers did, leading to our Revolution.

Judge Alito did not bother to tell us, however, in his brief and "technical" response, with particularity, why it would be proper to strip search a little girl, probably marring that little girl for life, certainly instilling in her most probably and rationally a great fear of the police henceforth, without there being any properly stated reason for it in the issuance of the warrant--such as that the parents were known in the past by the officers or by a reliable witness who provided information to the officers to have used the little girl in some way to harbor or secret weapons or critically incriminating evidence, or that the little girl was observed to have bulges on her person which might suggest secreting weapons or evidence, or other such particular facts justifying her search, especially such an intrusive search. Even if an affidavit made some generalized penumbral statement that the officers held some good faith belief that all persons and things on a particular residential premise should be searched, that would not, without particularized facts offered to support such invasive search, be sufficient under the Fourth Amendment to justify such a search, especially of a minor. Just how Judge Alito got around this reasoning, we have yet to hear from him satisfactorily. That is troubling.

We also find it most illuminating, distressingly--not to blame Judge Alito for this one, however, for it is Republican Senators who have been ballyhooing it--for the Senators to say that Judge Alito has rendered decisions for the "little guy", offering up the pointed example of upholding a man's right in a particular case to have a machine gun, against Federal law, holding that the Federal law in question went beyond the regulation of matters which "affect interstate commerce" under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, since in the Judge's view, the scope of regulation went beyond commercial regulation. (Again, we have not heard it explained, however, why, regulating sale of dangerous firearms, clearly commercial activity, is distinct from regulating possession of them. Would the Judge apply the same rule to narcotics regulation by the Federal government on the basis that health, morals, safety and welfare regulation are to be left to the States under the Tenth Amendment?)

We think it wise for the Republican silverdunderplates, and this is purely a political criticism, offering this rationale, to think a little. Is it wise to talk about the "little guy" with a machine gun if you want sympathy for this Judge's confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States?

Indeed, is it wise to talk in ephemeral terms of "family values" on the hustings at campaign time, while supporting inherently unreasonable strip searches of a ten-year old girl for doing nothing more terrible than being at home with her parents, however corrupt or not her parents might have been in the circumstances, when it comes time to confirm someone to the Supreme Court of the United States?

In our opinion, common sense dictates no to machine guns and no to the notion that it was the little girl's fault or problem as to what her parents may or may not have done to warrant a search of their persons and home without something specifically alleged having to do with the little girl. Hands off her body, hands off machine guns, Judge and Senators. Please heed the call.

We are thus possessed of the irresistible speculation as to whether those bright irresponsibles at Princeton in the late 1960's about which Judge Alito felt strongly enough to mention in his opening statement some 36 years after the fact had in their possession something more dangerous in the Judge's view than mere machine guns, than even a willingness to strip search a little girl? What was it which made them irresponsible? Words? And if so, we say that this man, no matter how decent, no matter how articulate, no matter his command of case names and holdings, is not a good candidate for the United States Supreme Court.

While we have not heard enough yet to offer our 2 cents plain as to whether Judge Alito should be confirmed, at this juncture we can only say that we have many unanswered fundamental questions as to what he means, with particularity, by some of his more disturbing generalized statements.

We hope therefore that the Senators, especially the entirely too friendly Republican Senators, will press him further for more particular elucidation to these disturbing sorts of opinions and statements--and desist from some of the less elucidative husting speeches which they seem more given to providing us. It is a rather silverdunderplate sort of remark to say, for instance, that Justice Ginsburg made known views in the confirmation process which indicated a divergence of opinion to the left of those of her predecessor, Justice White, appointed by President Kennedy, during his tenure on the Court, and thus since Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96 Senators, so too should the Democrats reciprocally concede the present nomination. First, the difference is a simple one; at the time in 1993, the so-called liberal to moderate side of the Court was usually three or four members, Justices Souter, Stevens, Blackmun, sometimes Justice O'Connor. The consistently liberal view, was unlikely to be changed from a minority to a majority view by the presence of any new justice on the Court. The same is not true of the present nomination. Presently there is a delicate balance on the Court between consistently conservative views and consistently liberal ones, with a moderate swing vote being represented in the center, one of which was often that of Justice O'Connor. A new justice who is consistently conservative might very well change that balance, even if historically we note that many times the dynamic of the Court itself will change to resist such a sea change to be manifested by the replacement of one justice by another. Moreover, in 1991, the retirement of Justice Marshall, a liberal, had been succeeded by the confirmation by a Democratic Senate of Justice Thomas, a conservative. Thus, it is not a very appealing or sensible argument to say that the Senate should confirm someone because someone else was confirmed by an overwhelming majority of each party; in fact to stress such a flimsy position suggests there may be flaws in the appointee which bear even more scrutiny.

We hope it will be so, and that, in that process, Judge Alito will satisfy these criticisms with more particular statements than we have heard so far.

And, as to "Relief from Politicians", it is noteworthy that Olin D. Johnston, then outgoing Governor of South Carolina in 1938, who had breakfast with President Roosevelt upon his visit to Columbia on December 5, 1938, would be re-elected Governor in 1942, after then Governor-elect Maybank would become Senator in 1941, serving until his death in 1954. Johnston would also then be elected to the Senate in 1944, serving until his death in 1965. He was, at the time of President Kennedy's visit to North Carolina in 1961, being contested in South Carolina for the Democratic nomination in 1962 by then Governor Ernest Hollings, who, himself, of course, would go on eventually to be elected to the Senate in 1966 to complete Johnston's unexpired term and then serve until this past year, 2005, one of the last of the great Southern orators, in our estimation. No one can ever say of South Carolina therefore that there is not a great respect there for continuity, though we suggest there was huge disparity between the type of continuity represented by the Cole L. Blease, Cotton Ed Smith, Strom Thurmond brand of continuity and that represented by the more moderate, even at times progressive, strains of Johnston, Maybank, and Hollings. Like North Carolina, South Carolina tends, as has been the case for the most part at least since the Civil War, toward a decisively schizoid nature in election of politicians, even more decisively so usually in North Carolina than the neighbor to the south. Just why this is so can probably be determined about as decisively, through studying demographics and voting patterns in differing portions of each state, as why it may or may not snow heavily in one or both of those two states during any given winter.

Relief of Politicians

There it is again. It almost never fails to happen. Once a politician gets on the Federal payroll it takes an act of God or a complete change of administrations to get him off.

The voters can't do it. They may turn thumbs down on the fellow seeking some elective office, and almost invariably he turns up holding some equally lucrative appointive office.

Run over this year's crop of turned-out Democratic politicians--Hancock of North Carolina, Johnston of South Carolina, Lewis of Maryland, Maverick of Texas, Camp of Georgia, Wearin of Iowa, Murphy of Michigan, Eicher of Iowa, Beiter of New York, Bulkley of Ohio--and all of them who haven't already received the consolation of some Federal job are either in line or sanguine over their prospects.

Senator Pope of Idaho, for instance, who was bowled over in the Democratic primary by Representative D. Worth Clark. Washington Merry-Go-Round made the flat statement Tuesday that the President had offered Pope and Pope had accepted the chairmanship of TVA. And will Representative D. Worth Clark vote to confirm his late antagonist? Almost surely. It will cost him nothing out of pocket, you see, and some day he might be the fellow needing friends.

The Mightiest Soldier

We hate to admit it even to ourselves and far worse do we hate to relay the dismal tidings to the trusting ladies of the Daughters of the Confederacy, but there is no help for it: the Confederate soldier is no longer the durnedest fighting man who ever horned into military annals. In the days before the Civil War (all right, ladies, the War Between that States, then), all the orators from Richmond to San Antonio confidently estimated that one Southern man could wipe up ten Yankees. And though they didn't, in fact, do quite that well in practice, they did do pretty doggoned well. Isn't it common knowledge that they always had us outnumbered five to one? And don't all of us Confederates know that they never did whip us in battle, and won the war not by arms but by dint of starving us out?

All the same, that record, unmatched in history save perhaps by Leonidas at Thermopylae, is shattered now. For that statement, we have the very highest authority, the Japanese Imperial Headquarters--which announces that, in seventeen months of warfare in China 47,133 Japanese soldiers have been killed, whereas 2,000,000 Chinese soldiers have been dispatched to their ancestors. That is, where one Confederate was equal in theory to ten Yankees, and in practice to five, one Japanese soldier is now revealed to be equal to somewhat more than 40 Chinamen!

There is a possible out. But we decline to take it. For to avail ourselves of it we should have to argue that one Yankee was the equal of at least eight Chinamen! And we decline to admit any such preposterous thing.

Un-Nazifiied Germans

The Associated Press reports that several thousand young Germans living on the French side of the border have refused to obey orders to return to Naziland for a period of military service. These youths mainly belong to families which lived in the Saar basin prior to the plebiscite in 1935, and who fled because of anti-Nazi sentiments. Nevertheless, their action serves to point a fact which is all too easy to forget in these times of passion--that not all Germans are really in favor of Nazism, and that many of them resist it so far as they dare.

Thousands of Germans fled from Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia when Hitler marched in, though Czechoslovakia, grimly determined to have no more "minority" issues, promptly turned them back. And so many Germans within Germany itself dared to speak out their dislike for the recent savage pogroms that the Nazis are now talking bitterly about "White Jews."

But what is most heartening about the young Germans in France is precisely that they are young. Hitler has boasted that he has no fears for the future of Nazism, because, with the education of youth entirely in his hands, he can overcome the influence of parents, churches, and what not, and mold them entirely to his own notions. But these youths were exposed to Nazified education in the Saar country, and to terrific Nazi propaganda. And that they did not succumb to it, argues that Mr. Hitler's game is less effective than he believes.

At Your Own Risk*

Business leaders are said to think the proposal has merit, and Harry Hopkins is no mere wisher. But, honestly, are we to start all over again with the ballyhoo method of putting people back to work?

As much is indicated in the stories from Washington. The new Secretary of Commerce, yet to be confirmed, is said to be considering a nation-wide drive, reaching into every city and town, aimed at getting employers to make as many jobs as possible.

Try this on the first employer you meet. Explain to him that there is a nation-wide drive on to reduce unemployment. Ask him to put on a couple of men, and when he asks you, getting his hackles up, "a couple of men doing what and at how much a week?" why, that, if you are wise, will be a signal for you to discover that you have a pressing engagement elsewhere.

For if you tarry too long, you are likely to hear him explode. He'll tell you that you've got the cart before the horse, that business makes jobs, not jobs business. He'll tell you that if he should put on a couple of unemployed persons he didn't need, he'd immediately have to start paying out of his pocket 3 per cent of their wages for their unemployment insurance and another 1 per cent for old age. He'll tell you that for these two superfluous employees he'd have to keep exhaustive records and make complete reports in order to prove that they were drawing not less than so much a week for not more than so many hours of work a week.

He'd tell you that his labor cost had already zoomed up to the point where prices were too high for volume and his margin of profit too small for the risk involved. He'd tell you, in short and in sum, that Harry Hopkins could go to blazes, and with him take his nation-wide drive aimed at getting employers to make as many jobs as possible.

The Face-Making Formula

If our base suspicions are not entirely unfounded, it is about time for M. Daladier, the Premier of all France, to ask, and get, more extraordinary powers calculated to undo the reforms of the preceding Popular Front regime. The suspect formula is simple. M. Daladier decides what he wants and doubts that he can get it under normal conditions. So he passes the word along to his friendly enemy, the Premier of all Italy, who obligingly makes a fighting face at the Premier of all France and all his little Frenchmen. At once all the little Frenchmen make a fighting face back at the Signor and all his little Italians, and while they are diverted M. Daladier cuts himself another slice of authority.

It happened so when M. Daladier first went to Parliament for endorsement of his summary interim acts. Italy, with a remarkable sense of timing, began to clamor for Tunisia. It happened so again when M. Daladier's working majority began to show signs of disappearing. Italy chose just that moment to denounce the Laval-Mussolini agreement of 1935.

And at this moment M. Daladier, on the strength of unconfired reports that Fascist troops are massing in Ethiopia on the border of French Somaliland, and having but now heard the report, likewise unconfirmed, that for a whole eighteen months Italian troops had been occupying bases in this disputed territory, has sent a warship steaming through Suez into the Red Sea, with others to follow.

M. Daladier's stage is all set. His colleagues will not fail him at so critical a time for La Patrie as this.

Site Ed. Note: By the way, for your further edification, here's a couple of more photographs for your comparison. Surprisingly, someone would have us believe, and for 42 years, that they were taken 102 days less than 99 years apart. That would be fairly remarkable. Not quite the same photograph, but rather similar. In the first one, there was reputedly an assassin lurking just above the speaker, to his left. In the second one, there was apparently also an assassin similarly poised, though not quite visible to us, just as in the first one. Strange, wouldn't ye say?


Framed Edition
[Return to Links-Page by Subject] [Return to Links-Page by Date] [Return to News--Framed Edition]
Links-Date -- Links-Subj.