The Charlotte News
Wednesday, March 13, 1940
Site Ed. Note: We start by addressing a bit of a puzzle regarding the arrests of the two individuals, the 21 year-old Atwater and the 17-year old Lovette, for the murder last week of Eve Carson, the UNC student body president, a murder committed, police say, in a random manner for the apparent purpose of robbery and car theft.
The puzzle arises from the fact that today Lovette was also arrested for the murder of Abhijit Mahato, a Duke graduate student from India, murdered in January a short distance from the Duke campus. But Mr. Mahato's murder already, we find, has one man under arrest for the crime, a man named Oates, arrested January 26 in Durham. So, we are left to conclude that this 17-year old has now allegedly been an accomplice in two separate murders, with two different individuals, occurring nearby two normally quiet college campuses, twelve miles apart, both victims losing their lives to handgun violence, within 45 days of one another.
We note also that Mr. Mahato's death got no national coverage, at least none that we have found, no mention in major national newspapers outside North Carolina, none in the principal media beyond the local markets. Yet, Mr. Mahato was also an accomplished individual, just as was Ms. Carson. Mr. Mahato was a doctoral candidate at Duke, indicative of no mean standard of achievement through his young life of 29 years, cut short by gunfire, also over a penny-ante robbery.
Whether Mr. Lovette, or Mr. Oates, or Mr. Atwater, is guilty of these crimes with which they have been charged remains, of course, undetermined and we should avoid the temptation, which the media spawns, of jumping to conclusions as to their guilt based merely on arrests. There appears ample evidence pointing to Atwater's and Lovette's guilt in the case of Ms. Carson's murder: their attempted use of credit cards of Ms. Carson and the possession of her vehicle, as caught on surveillance cameras at two separate locations after the murder. But that evidence remains of course circumstantial as to the murder itself. There may well be other evidence in the form of DNA, fingerprints, ballistics, possession of the inculpatory firearm, and the like, to which the public has not yet been made aware, which will subsequently come forth. But, as yet, they are merely charged with these serious offenses and have not yet been tried or convicted.
The question arises as to why, with one man already in custody in the first murder since late January, the police in Durham were unable to establish the existence of a second assailant, identify him and make an arrest, especially as Lovette has been in the criminal justice system previously and thus one would assume should have been relatively easily identifiable. But we don't know much about the first case and so we simply raise the question.
In a broader sense, we ask whether something else in our society might be stimulating this apparent hostility toward college students, something other than merely the passion of greed for robbery, that surfacing with the Cho murders last spring: whether there is a target toward what are perceived to be the "spoiled" and the "wealthy", some strain in the culture promoting this notion. Was it the elaborate tv coverage itself regarding Mr. Cho's inner world and unrelenting hostility voiced toward his "spoiled" fellow college students, that which was played over and over again on 24-hour news programs last spring? Has it spawned copy cats, but of a different variety from Cho and the other school shooters, street kids now who historically fancy themselves half-desperado vindicating wrong treatment by society by wronging society in return, half-urban philosophe, a rebel without a cause, possessed of the urban teenage angst and alienation, dispossessed of means to acquire the material things induced to their minds by tv fantasy they ought to have, induced by equal doses, by the interstitial advertising in any college sporting contest, for instance, to believe that all the college kids have it all--and so? We simply ask the questions. We honestly don't know. (Parenthetically, we comment that, candidly, when we sit and watch college sporting contests, the advertisements are so repulsive that we usually have to leave the room. In less than cautious and introspective moments, we, too, sometimes find ourselves wondering why they have it all and we so little in comparison--for that is the whole bent and purpose of these silly ads, to make the viewer feel left out and alienated, unless, that is, they are possessed of the same product the athlete or actor in the commercial is pushing--which is why young kids barely old enough to shave steal the silliest things for the silliest of reasons. If anything ought be troubling Congress in the sporting world, it should be the manipulation, nay, brainwashing techniques, of corporate television advertising.)
Not unrelated, we note yesterday the flack about Geraldine Ferraro's remarks in Torrance, California, a few days earlier, as reported in the Torrance newspaper, with regard to a speech Ms. Ferraro made in which she suggested that Senator Obama would not be where he is today, in a tight race for the Democratic nomination for President with Senator Clinton, if he were a woman of any color or other than an African-American male, and that he was thus "lucky" to be who he is.
Candidly, we think it all a tempest in a teapot. Ms. Ferraro has every right to speak her mind; it is one of the refreshing qualities she exhibited in 1984 as a Vice-Presidential nominee--so much so that her debate opponent that year had a somewhat prickish comment for her just before the debate about getting ready to kick some part of her anatomy. That, of course, was overlooked by the press pretty much as boys-will-be-boys sort of humorous jabberwocky.
Moreover, what we heard her say was certainly not "racist", a word which has been tossed around so much in recent times as to lose all of its meaning, reducing the label to a practical absurdity. It ought not be so, for there are still genuine racists among us, people who despise others for their racial characteristics and nothing more, people who prejudge others and act on that prejudgment bias. And the charge extends across all racial boundaries. There are racists within all races. By her record, Ms. Ferraro is certainly not one of those persons.
But it is of course the case that traditionally the United States, and most of what is characterized as Western civilization, has historically been dominated politically, economically, academically, and socially by Caucasians. That face is changing in the last century, ever so slowly, by fits and starts, and steps backward from progress, and progress again, and with it attitudes and beliefs, both as to the paternalistic and the invidious forms of racial prejudice. There is a chafing effect which takes place as these changes occur, a class chafing, an interracial chafing, the steady rise of expectations for change regardless of educational background, regardless of work experience, the expectation, the demand, for justice to rectify centuries of injustice which has left behind in poverty or without equal educational opportunity generations of people who are poor, rural, other than Caucasian, or having a combination of those characteristics. They are not all African-American of course, the oppressed of our society. And many, indeed, are white.
The tragic results of that sad history of oppressive prejudice, a failure to afford equal opportunity in a meaningful sense to all, regardless of wealth or background racially or socially, we see on the front pages of the newspapers nearly everyday, and have for decades. It is not hard to find in any burg of the land.
But racists, historically, were men such as Wallace, Thurmond, Faubus, Bilbo, Maddox, Barnett, the vocal segregationists who used the issue of race to achieve and maintain power, and, moreover, the local pols who made the careers of these men through Klan-organized machines, who acted as the organizational conduit between the racist white and the promotion of like-minded men to local, state, and even national office. "Racist" or "demagogue" ought properly be reserved to persons truly of that stripe, who deliberately whip passions on race or other issues for invidious purposes, for political gain, for monetary gain, or for the promotion of hate for the sake of it. It should not ever be applied, lest it lose all power and meaning, to those merely making honest and race-neutral statements, not in the least based on any record of racist action, regarding their own viewpoint about a person who happens to be of another race and who is in a position or vying for a position of responsibility; or where racial terminology is used purely in an ironic way to shame racists from the use of those terms, to take the sting from the remarks, or to promote honest debate on genuine issues, even if racially charged issues.
For we cannot deal with problems by ignoring them or sweeping them under the rug. It is true, that which President Kennedy uttered in June, 1963, that "race has no place in American life or law." But that is not to say that we should hide from any discussion of race at all, lest we are to be labeled a racist. That is the surest path to enable prejudices to be secretly maintained and fostered until they once again boil over and burst onto the front page.
Those old racist political machines, of course, largely broke down finally and withered away for the most part by the mid-seventies, and with them, to a large degree, did so too the graft-built machines, constructed equally invidiously to the rights of all, by using elective office as a means to wealth, essentially a legalized form of bribery.
Yet, prejudice of many sorts, including prejudice against persons because of their educational background, including prejudice against those who articulate ideas well and reasonably, or against those who have a particular color of hair or eyes or any other immutable characteristic, still exists, and widely. And that prejudice, too, obviously embraces still a wide degree of racial prejudice, born of a society historically which has had apartheid victimizing it, including all its races, for time immemorial. For apartheid at once not only impacts negatively the race maintained as separate, but also separates out and maintains as separate any part of the enforcing "race" which does not go along with the notion of apartheid. In truth, the enforcers are and always have been a small coterie at the top who keep the minions in line by economic and social coercion, and by that method, induce thinking commensurate with it, prejudice against a common enemy to enforce the bond of brotherhood with the protective enclave at the top.
Should Ms. Ferraro have to fend off charges of racism because she dared to speak her mind for a moment and suggest that Senator Obama's meteoric and unprecedented rise in American politics is in part the result of his being an African-American male? That he is "lucky" to be who he is? We think that she should not. There is nothing racist about those remarks. Senator Obama has been a Senator, after all, for only three years. Indeed, his career in the Senate thus far has been unremarkable, in terms of legislative accomplishments. Prior to his election to the Senate, he was a state senator in Illinois, prior to that, a lawyer and instructor at a prominent law school, the University of Chicago, after graduation from Harvard Law School in 1991 at age 30. We hear therefore Ms. Ferraro speaking more to that meteoric rise to such a position, and at a relatively young age, than we hear any comment about race per se.
But, we think that Senator Obama's meteoric rise is for a reason, and not about his race. He represents a new face, a new voice, and one that speaks well on the issues of concern, not just another preachifying pol able to construct English sentences--(though that alone would be a refreshing change after the last seven years, as part of the qualification for the office is to communicate ideas well to the American people). He is not identified with political machines and backroom deals, as he has not been a Washington insider long enough to inhabit the circles which inculcate that sort of value system. His freshness comes from that, we think, coupled with his powerful mind and keen intelligence. It is not a rise dissimilar in its antecedents and tone to that of John Kennedy in 1960, though in his case he had been a failed candidate at the 1956 convention for the Vice-Presidential nomination. Much was the rise, too, of Bill Clinton, from Governor of Arkansas, unknown to the public at large, to his position as party nominee in 1992. Much was the rise of Jimmy Carter in 1976, albeit at a time when the country was seeking a fresh start from the vagaries exposed in the Watergate scandal.
Would Senator Obama be where he is today if he were a woman, a white male? That question obviously has no answer. It is like asking whether Bill Clinton would have been nominated and then elected President if he had been an African-American or a woman in 1992.
In short, we do not think Ms. Ferraro's comment is one that goes very far, for it leads only to unproveable speculation, and such speculation, she, as a former prosecutor, well knows, which might only inflame the wrong sort of passions. But it was not racist, and to call it so also inflames the wrong kind of passions. Ms. Ferraro had every right to make the comment and to do so on the hustings acting as a surrogate for Senator Clinton. This is a political campaign, not a Sunday social. We prize first and foremost freedom of speech in this country.
If anyone were to suggest that Senator Obama is not competent because he is African-American, that would obviously be laughably racist. But to suggest merely that he has sparked fire in the country, in spite of his relative inexperience in politics, because he is an African-American male, while not particularly interesting as a suggestion, is also not racist.
We might seriously ask whether there would be more deliberate scrutiny, both by the press and public alike, of Senator Obama's qualifications, for this relative lack of experience, to be President, were he Caucasian. Is the press pulling punches for fear of offending the African-American audience? Requisite experience was certainly a matter scrutinized as to Bill Clinton, especially on foreign policy issues; such was the case also with the current President. But, we note that lack of scrutiny was certainly not evident when either Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson ran for the Democratic nomination. Again, if it be the case at all, the basis for less than sharp scrutiny may be sheer force of personality, not anything to do with race.
But those sorts of hypothetical notions are also non-starters. It is up to the candidate opposing, after all, to raise issues thought to require scrutiny, and to raise them in ways which resonate with and are palatable to the press and public, if there be anything substantive to them.
Likewise, the campaign worker for Senator Obama had every right to call Senator Clinton a "monster", even if the comment conveys only emotion in the heat of a tight campaign and also goes nowhere in advancing the debate between the candidates, or educating the public on where each candidate stands on issues. Three-year olds do not vote, and thus whether a candidate for public office is a "monster" would not be bothersome to most voters, who are apt to turn a deaf ear to such obvious hyperbole. Indeed, why was the comment an issue? We don't know.
We prefer that these sorts of exchanges be dismissed with good humor than to result in firings and mea culpas and apologies and other such nonsense. We would prefer at the beginning of each campaign that each candidate and each voter supporting that candidate simply apologize en masse to the other side for existing and breathing, get it out of the way and then go about the ordinary carping and cudgeling which normally characterizes political campaigns in this country. It is one thing to drag a campaign into the bedroom of the candidate; it is quite another to engage in mere rhetoric of various kinds. The latter is expected, the former intolerably invasive, and thankfully appearing no longer to be a part of political campaigns.
But when staff are dismissed because of what they say, a message is being sent that we must always watch the manner of our speech in public and private, regardless of what we might be articulating substantively, and especially if the articulation is emotive in quality and possessed of ample adjectival floridity, or even if in the vein of the time-honored methods of poetic communication, metaphor and allegory and irony; and that sort of thinking leads on to a sure path of losing democracy. It quashes and acts as an informal prior restraint on the first tenet of democracy, that which enabled the civil rights movement to be in the first place, its sine qua non for existence, the thing which those antithetical to civil rights most despise and always, ab initio, seek to quash with prior restraint, and, as far back as Herod, from infancy onward if possible: freedom of speech and press.
We need politicians who are not afraid to speak their minds, campaign surrogates and spokesmen who are not afraid to do so, even if that means once in awhile emoting in some manner, and by it offending some person or group. That is part of life, too. And our leaders should pose examples in this regard, not play staged set pieces, alternately occupying the roles of either soap opera characters or stand-up comedians, robotically reciting lines for the entertainment of the tv audience, while enlightenment and intelligence and rationality in society go begging to the Saturday follies, not their Constitution or their leaders, for reason.
Let's have at it. That's what politics ought be. It leads to honest debate, primarily on issues which matter, even if the path to that end is sometimes fraught with the inevitable yawning chasm-inducing Quemoy and Matsu issue or idle promises of "no new taxes".
Then, in that more open environment, less concerned with how we say something, but rather the substance of what we are saying, instilling by it an atmosphere where there pervades debate not over whether it was right to make comment in the manner stated, but instead, should one disagree, taking the form of simple argument in response to the point; and in such an atmosphere, perhaps, we will learn again to respect freedom of speech, and by similar measures, freedom of religion and freedom of association, such that we won't be seeing more promising young students being laid to rest after gunfire on or near college campuses or in high schools, the result in part, in our estimation, of three decades of gross over-emphasis on politeness, and not enough on the troubles of inner-city youth, and the fascination in this country with violence and guns, a fascination long preceding the advent of either movies or television. Those manifold and complex problems, among others, are far more important systemically and philosophically to our future progress and sustenance as a society than whether someone offended someone's sensitivities or called someone a name, even though in no manner questioning their integrity or general qualifications for public office.
We say we stand for these ideals in the Constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, but then we do not live by them--certainly haven't during the last six years. We treat them as window dressing by and large in daily life, increasingly so, dangerously so. We worry more about whether someone is "moral", based on purely subjective standards, usually boiling down to whether someone is liked or not, than we do on whether we are according each other fair and equal treatment, whether we are allowing each other to speak our minds with reasonable freedom, whether we are curbing government excesses, intrusions violative of the First or Fourth Amendment, oblivious to the notion that these matters all go hand in hand, proving the ultimate wisdom of the Founders--the failure of which realization has led us all to this day in March, 2008, a day on which we find ourselves in a pretty farcical mess, at least in our opinion.
We want to hear more about where each of the three candidates still in the race for President stands on issues, less on their personalities, less on what they ate for breakfast, and far less on the personalities of their surrogates and staff. We understand that the response is that, well, after all, if you can't use good judgment in appointing surrogates and staff on the campaign trail, then you won't in the White House. If you eat certain food for breakfast, it implies a certain kind of approach to life. But that sort of approach, historically, of course, is all hogwash. One of the better, smoother, more gaffe-free, graft-free, even personable, campaigns ever run in modern history was that of the "New" Richard Nixon in 1968. His White House, however, left a little to be desired, as he quickly returned to being the "Old" Richard Nixon.
The American people are not dopes or three-year olds. They can pretty well size up the character and fitness for office, to the extent ever possible, of a man or woman on face value, listening to what candidates have to say, whether they have to read it off cue cards or whether they speak it from firm conviction and principle. And they can do so without so much of the folderol and bunting of varying kinds which collects in the boredom of the press during campaigns, especially for President, and then comes to invade the process night and day with this or that tempest in a teapot to keep the journalists themselves from falling asleep over the same speeches. But, the people do not hear those speeches day in and day out and need more education on the stances of the candidates and what those stances mean in a practical sense. We are not suggesting that does not occur, only that it should be the primary focus, not the numbers in the polls, how much money is being raised or the personality quirks and strengths of each candidate, the things which tend as the campaign goes on to fill so much of the airtime.
Issues, stick to the issues which really matter. We know that you aren't about to lose your home, Mr. or Ms. TV Journalist, for you make a lot of money for reading the news. But a whole lot of people are and would prefer to know where each of the three candidates stand on that issue, what they intend to do about the mortgage crisis, about gun control, about global warming, about alternative and renewable ecosystem-friendly energy resources, how to reorient the automobile industry, and the tastes of the American public in the process, to non-fossil fuel vehicles, the war, and a host of other issues which will really matter to them in the next four years, rather than what a surrogate or staff member said which might have been somehow offensive to someone somewhere, as long as you are sure to bring it to everyone's collective attention, but which won't matter a hill of beans a week from now, any more than it did at the time uttered.
Perhaps a better issue is: was it racist, was it sexist, for the media to grant so much coverage to the death of Ms. Carson at UNC, and yet provide virtually none nationally to the similar death of the Duke doctoral student, Mr. Mahato, in January? both equally sad losses of two young, accomplished people by handguns wielded by robbers. Perhaps that is the more substantive question, one on which the media ought examine itself in the mirror--and stop running us all crazy with the incessant fixation on "role models for kids", whatever that is. Whose role models? Whose kids?
We posit that any parent who offers anything at all from a movie or from tv, fact or fiction, or from popular culture generally, as a "role model" is indeed morally corrupt and a ripe candidate for an asylum. The movies, tv, and popular culture are for fun, entertainment, and information, as distinguished from education, nothing more. They, whether as themselves or as characters in a play, who appear in the popular culture, are certainly not role models for anyone, save perhaps their own children.
Most of us had and have as primary role models whoever it was that primarily raised us. The rest is in your mind, Alice.
For more on "Contempt", see "Contempt", February 4, 1940.
The rest of the page is here.
The Agonies Of Cotton Ed Fail To Upset Us
We were not moved. By the four-column picture spread on the front page of The News yesterday, that is.
The spread, as our little readers may see by turning back to the paper, consisted of three panels illustrating the agony and disgust of the Hon. Ellison DuRant (Cotton Ed) Smith, Senator and Congressman from South Carolina, as he set himself to making out his income tax return.
Not that, in general, we lack sympathy for those who have to make out these reports and come through with the cash. Heaven forbid! Around this time each year, indeed, we are apt to grow as morose about the exactions of government as the best Tory of them all, as gloomy about the probable fate of the nation. The handing over of the money is quite properly described as agony. And as if that were not enough, the report forms are patently contrived to confuse and infuriate the victim, to trip him into paying more than he is bound to, or less--with the hoosegow as the penalty.
But to Cotton Ed's exhibitionist writhings we remain icy. For we recall his career.
In 1896 Ellison DuRant Smith became a representative in the Legislature of South Carolina, stayed there until 1900. In 1909 he became a United States Senator, has remained one ever since. Five terms already, the sixth in progress. Thirty-five years on the public payroll, with five more coming up. Thirty-one years at ten thousand smackers a year, clerk hire, mileage, etc. In his time in the Senate the Federal Treasury has spent about half a million iron men on Cotton Ed.
Sympathy? Rats! Whatever his agony over income taxes, he can well afford to pay up and add up cheerfully--remembering that his country has dealt more than generously by him.
St. Louis Case Recalls How Dangerous Power May Be
In St. Louis the Post-Dispatch has been carrying on a campaign of criticism against the prosecution record of Circuit Attorney Franklin Miller and the circuit judge, one Thomas J. Rowe Jr. Recently, the judge tried a member of the Missouri Legislature, charged with extortion. The charge was dismissed. The newspaper published two editorials and a cartoon criticizing the decision.
And now Circuit Attorney Franklin Miller is asking Circuit Judge Thomas J. Rowe to jail three members of the Post-Dispatch staff for contempt. The judge is "studying it," will act, he says, "as the facts warrant." The Post-Dispatch thinks it knows what that means, prepares for a fight to the Supreme Court if necessary.
The whole action smells, and serves to emphasize again the fact that the contempt powers of judges ought to be rigidly defined by law.
So far as there is any justification for such powers, it resides wholly in the necessity of insuring that trials are conducted in an orderly manner without outside interference. Newspapers clearly have no right to make any comment in the course of a trial which is likely to influence the decision. But once a trial is complete, they emphatically do have the right to make any comment they like.
If the judge or the prosecuting attorney are libeled, well and good--they have recourse to the libel laws. But so long as they are not libeled, then as public officials their acts are rightly subject to the same examination and appraisement which the public holds as against all other public officials. Else the courts are made into sacrosanct tyrants with the power to shut up free speech and arbitrarily retaliate upon their critics by setting themselves up as equivalent to the majesty of the law in trying their own cases.
Judge Howard Explains Why Man Was Not Sent To Jail
Judge Vance Howard takes issue, politely, with The News for its editorial yesterday criticizing County Recorder's Court for double lenience in dealing with a two-time drunken driver. The editorial expressed the opinion that Judge Howard, in not sentencing the man to jail for driving while his license stood revoked (not to speak of his driving drunk while his license stood revoked for having driven drunk), was overriding the state law which makes imprisonment mandatory in such instances.
Judge Howard contends that the man was not being tried for operating a car during the term of his suspended license, that the court was in ignorance of his previous offense and probably would have none of it if his attorney had not volunteered the information.
We see the point and concede its validity, though it should be accompanied by some explanation of why neither the solicitor nor the judge sought to amend the warrant, as was their right, to include driving while license was revoked.
Indeed, when anybody is being tried for drunken driving as well as driving without a license, that combination of circumstances should put courts on notice that perhaps his license has been revoked. It would be worth the price of a telegram to Raleigh, at any rate.
As for the drunken driver involved in this case, The News is not interested, hopes that he may go and offend no more. But as for the system of trying drunken drivers who lack driving licenses, we think that the courts should consult the records and find out why.
Site Ed. Note: The final Treaty with Finland in 1944, which may be read here, refers to the 1940 Treaty, ending the so-called Winter War with Russia, and recites some of the history of the war with respect to Finland after the 1940 surrender.
Countries may surrender their sovereignty to an invader, but the people of that country do not necessarily follow the puppet leaders who do so.
Stalin And Hitler Scored Greatest Victory Of War
It was a foregone conclusion. And yet the surrender of Finland comes as a shock. For tragedy is still bitter even when it is expected. At a blow the prestige of Red Russia has been refurbished and Nazi Germany has won the greatest victory since Munich. It may lead to even greater victories.
That is no exaggeration. Adolf Hitler has cleared his northern flank and his immediate rear--may be sure now that, if he has to fight on the Eastern Front at all, it will be only in the south instead of along the whole range from the Gulf of Bothnia to the Black Sea.
So far as Finland is concerned, she may as well be written off. Moscow has recognized the existing government for purposes of signing the treaty. But the terms imposed make the country helpless. And it may confidently be expected that the next six months will see happen to Finland the same thing that happened to Czechoslovakia when it was made helpless at Munich, though it is entirely possible that it may be a Nazi tyranny instead of a Red one which will be established over the nation.
That probably writes off, also, the Scandinavian Peninsula as a whole. Sweden has now no likely choice save that of submitting quietly to becoming a Nazi puppet state or of being overrun and absorbed altogether. And after Sweden will probably come Norway, for when the Nazis decide to strike they will move much too swiftly to give the ponderous British Government time to make up its vacillating mind.
Far worse than this even is the fact that it has again been demonstrated to the small nations still on the fence that Britain and France never move in time to save them. The Balkans will prick up their ears at the lesson, and so will Holland and Belgium and Denmark--perhaps even Turkey. Britain lost face enormously in this business.
Sitting on the fence until the last moment, she was betrayed into rushing out at last with an offer to send effective aid only to have the Finns contemptuously ignore it and fall into the arms of the Reds and Nazis. Indeed, the effective loss of face is not likely to stop with Europe or Turkey but to expand into Egypt, Arabia, and on through all the East--where face counts above everything.
And perhaps worst of all, Russia is now released to become a supply base for the Nazis. Stalin is said to be thoroughly chastened by the Finnish campaign and well aware that he has got to make his regime more efficient at any cost, if it is to survive. The reports already have the Russian hotels swarming with Germans. And if the German technicians can get control of the Russian economy, they may well perform the kind of miracle for which they are famous, and, with Rumania caught in the vise between the two nations, make German supplies certain and secure.
It was a tremendous hole which was cut in the British blockade yesterday.
Links-Date -- Links-Subj.