Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / March 1, 1960, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
rv.?: inn TUESDAY, MARCH 1. 1763 Regarding Softness And Our Breakdown :k Crowlher t ! , . ? c- ' . Il'.l ( k I.i re (.;, Hi. - i." It-iii; urr'; i t I n i t (;;;-;. o.s r . i ? a the V (I. .1' p.lli. I , . (I V:-i Ili.it : ' s , :!, . i- ;i,iii i il 1 1 t.ll -IV .i;m r;,l;'.y it rupic. (!i-t,u of tic hivin'L, l.K'k (if 1111'.. .1 t tll'll.lllll O Latter ).; ll.l-. T"! . . 1 1 1 f M ( commitment ,l . tif. l-l'!. iti-.i tli. t'.i l".u:1. I ; u- i mi. I -.'! p..! - ill 'A - n. i and I)..vi. !" I ;i series ! ( un- r":i. if vu will la-diioiiablo. All I 'I t' ti I - t l) (in l ) tht'M' d;us is tut :it ion that .-0:111 tiling oeir.s 10 h.io g (i :i o v. i ( n ; m a n I v. ;l ii America and 11 i as if inniim tia AlladiiK I .; ; I...d 1) ri'I'iu-d s:ii';iv-t- is (lend spon- . 4 iih-ii ln.ilii- ( t I hcniM'h es ui'l arc all too iil.iU to, dia,"-i:.'-c. pn-no.-ti-cito an'), wit'i ciit batting an i y o . prescribe um.1,1 r.ith.T these self i'd; il adill.l ill till' Oll'- e.;' what is wrong !. hut that something chinu viv a!. Is there a Is ;l (i.- ;"pT 10 capi r pos; C!:!' . -iritual hank tr.r,ie fallacy lonely crowd, or ,ipv of sehos from the public to the extent that many ii them forget that the public is still 'out there." ex cept in a theoretical sense. Academia itself is often charac terized by a smug "I'.i D-isra" with inter-departmental rivalry and jealously prevailing (dis trust again). The professors have no kind words for the politician.-, but have their own instantar.e--ous political theories upon which they will expound at i he drop of a textbook. Well, then, what ahnut the poor old public? It is not amazing to discover that they really don't trust anybody from their milkman to their poli ticians. And no matter what you hear to the con trarv (the intellectuals' campaign to make the in tellectuals respectable notwithstanding). Americans are an anti-intellectual. If we examine tho societal structure, we find tiiat the lower cla.-s trusts basebal, but not the um pires; bartenders, but not the whisky served by the" establishment; their felow workers, but only a: opposed lo their blood-sucking employers (and once they're oil work, they don't trust their fellow workers anymore). The middle class doesn't trust the middle class, but sits around with its peers wisecracking about its plight; its members join any number of a variety of clubs, organizations and leagues, professinu mutual assistance and spout ing humanitarian ideals, but they, will stab their best friends in the back to get ahead and adulter- r !'!! I I . i v r .: - mi. 'i.!ernii!. . the the vj..:iief i '.i ! : ' r a ! t a'l I phra-es'. ip problem, lb' C.'l'l !:W II c-.-;:y I ( ii ini 1 o .-ei'va', i ids. He is als u tripi-cd wMh'n hi- own person. 1 lb.- aura of objectivity is subtly sub Oi u.- Hv'm.t. we caimet posil;ly dis . r eurily irein an objective sland- ni '-.ii i i ii i e i' r.i ! : .i ; i . i 'i. e.i P. !!t'i!',;l t .. 1! ! .1 Fer re in t! CI .;! V for ie- r.a on ar.' :;i:d i :i a T I ' ! Hi-, el I.. I a'h. lite ' !!l i.ie" I il A .ii I i' .'! W- le, 1) l e If -' ll-e" It n til. a!'.-r. ! 'i : ini sc. d ill .1 Mil 1 I) r. II' I peo- er problem a i i n e v e Mi : rd . r -is ( ii.uc :i l. , i . . ;i i '; tie. i i : i Ul ii ' i t lire i .,! mi 'i n i i t . ii . - vo ert I: ;i a- I .''. . e a . . c'o to f.,: (.. rr.!,' I ir I A Mi i : t i..; .: ll'l'.l IV. ever. I::- asertion th-.t which afflicts" us is wel' that i- too 'ross a gen- i i many 'pjnrar people s. .(..,, U'ldUsiV' ludi- y that ail . f Africa is af i i.ia That would not if nieiie ni'ich sense. Ibit. he bii.ius to our attentien e ! ; : ; and dedicated ' :n any evaluation. a. set-; (.)ur v wh or what vo ?re." i e ; i .i I or a nietaoh sical er J a. i'ee. If he rm-aiH i ';c i an a:'agoj:c i 1 1 . i " . Wc mav on!v a universal substi - ar tntrinsicnpy per ; i i n - of any one to an I the metaphysical unity p ii ii o ..'(! herness). Mutu.'.l : i iai i'.:. ships, organea This organ I he s miit.'inat ic of a ' h.r e rti-hcd. e.i 'erlv. : to '-.roup. a. id any group. 1 cods a stron:; leaf'er. ():;r that wc have not r ii . i,i ii'.- .i ! -trust group metap- .inn. gioup Iherapy 1 in 1 u ( t- i , IS I' l t 1 e m i. I'i'.e a d pd';: ! wor i.i :i an 1 i l ! 'I Id '1 'I iv.d'i r -"II lei , II - I.i 1 e ! i ,r , l I t!d d i Is "'!' Oi;r our inahilitv to ! ii ' ' Inch muht resemble Hi'. in- pi'dlosup'nv." The rea lm one group n -pects or li:l. .-opkers remove them- What Abcuf This? 1. The nation i at w:r. 2. Thi infion is loiinq the war, badly. a vastly greater effor Tho nation most exert There is still time brother. by. y v. i.i i i it tr T'-i. Ile.l j 'II- l-WS ii.l.'or As.s He late $7 Od IU.lv prir.tr In.- VT c X'CtinhTlOU b it cf jtw V1tnsd' , b'kh l,ti la ,1 n ( 'rtirboro N i. a4e indiscriminately. And the upper cla well. HAVE W FT? when you get down to i' (or up to them), who really knows anything about the upper class? 1 don't mean the parvenu wealthy product of the up per bourgeoisie (once a bourgeois, always a bourge ois), but the honest-to-God American aristocrat of wealth, rank and intellect. In my estimation they are a species unto themselves and not easily or conveniently categorized. And what oi the "Big Idea" Father Davis says we have lost, "the meaning and purpose of human life in relation to a real order of objective and transcendent being?" Here Father Davis is being true to his colors in referring to an "objective and transcendent being." but why doesn't he come right out and say what he means: (Joel? Has that become a bad word, too? F.ven for the clergy? How vague and cautious can one be? As always, any religious discussion treads on tenuous hog and. as I iterated above, in the final analysis, is and can be nothing but personal con viction. It certainly cannot be amalgamated into any new "public philosophy.' for all one has to do is look around to see the product of our demo cratic ideal which has (or had) as its corner-stone, "in God we trust." I don't think wc believe that anymore. We obviously don't practice it as a na tion. We find ourselves in Housman's "world I never made." a world lo which this "God" never speaks; possibly, on which He has turned His back. We a-k. "Doi s God exist"" Any two may agree that they feed he does. But the coincidence of their belief cannot posit the unquestionable existence of something wo know not. We make a grave mistake if we tend to confuse feelings with 'reality.' what ever that may be. Indeed, we would all be better off if we knew God docs or does riot exist. Bui none of us has died (that we know of), and death r the inexorable inevitability of life, no matte; one's station or personal conviction. I'ntil we pass that barrier, tlieie is no assurance other than emotional and how many of us honestly have that? What do we have then? Wo have the greatest nation ever to exist in all history. Or should I say that we nad the greatest opportunity of any na tion? And what have we done with it: ravaged it. coveted it. and. as Dos Bassos wrote in the Twen ties. ". . . bought the laws and fenced off the meadow's and cut down the woods for pulp and turned our pleasant cities into slums and sweated the wealth out of our people. . . ." This is not en tirely true. I quickly add. We are not all scabious, parasitic, ruthless monsters. There are even now many good people in America who have the will and, hopefully, the strength to wrestle themselves out of the impasse, who refuse to believe that they are totally alienated or deracinated, who will fight the aggressive, greedy ideology which is character ized by the goof-off after the easy money, the last buck, the sybaritic life of moral disengage ment and irresponsibility. Though the task be enormous, I hope it n.? Sisyphean. We are confronted with a strangely ineffective breed of politicians, many of whom, under th" veneer, are no more than malignant glory-seekers. And Machiavelli's words might well apply to our present administration's policy, to wit: "Occasion- The o! Tit iftl st uric nt pub I cation o." the Publication o (! of the I Diversity of North Carolina where it ij published duly rxiept Mori I.i.' ao- examination period end summer terms K"!ered second rl.i-s mai'i r in the p ist office ir. Chapel Mill. N (, uinl.M !i' ai of Mar'h ('.7') .-iiti,ermf io' rat hi Od per sc DAVIS B. YOUNG Fditor S'ow. Kditors . . ssistant Kali tor Editorial Asst. Managing liditors Sports Fditor ...... Asst. Sports Fditor feature Fihtor Niuht liditur FUWK CBOWTHFK DFF DANTFLS F.DWMtD K UKU RON' SHUMATE M LOU K FDD FN I.ABBV SMITH FU.IOTT COOBFH C. J. UNDFHWOOf) MAI' Y ALICK ROWLETTF Bill Porter ally words must serve to veil the facts. But this must happen in such a way that no one becomes aware of it: or. if it should be noticed, excuses must be at hand, to be produced immediately." Is this not the essence of our present bureaucracy? Its modus operandi? Our churches and our religions should be a uniting factor (whether their tenets are true or merely pragmatic), but they feud constantly, and instead of conjoining persist in their vain division, thus eviscerating their usefulness through squab bling. And if you delve deeply enough, you discover some iimong their ranks would sacrifice anything to obtain and maintain ecclesiastical order. Fo example. Dietrich Von Nichcim. Bishop of Verden in the ."ih century, who wrote: "When the exis tence of the Church is threatened, she is rfbas"'i from the commandments of morality. With unity as the end. the use of every means is sanctified, even cunning, treachery, violence, simony, prison, death. For all order is for the sake of the commun ity, and the individual must be scarificed to the common good." Are there men of such belief ex tant in the Church today? The anathema of to talitarianism may lurk under any roof. Let us learn its disguises. And let us look. now. to our sheep, for as the man said: "there is still time, Brother." Let us seek out the infidc Is. those who do not hold that man has the one thing le ft to which he may cling: individual human dignity. Let us ponder, with all seriousness, the lamentation of the Patrician Women, in St.-John Pcrsc's "Seamarks." who asked (as we now must): "Our books read, our dreams closed, was that all there was? Where then is the fortune, where the issue" Where did it come to fail us. and which is the' threshold that we did not cross?" Thurston N. Davis "If I wanted to destroy a na tion," John Steinbeck wrote hi friend Adlai S.evenson in a le.ter published by the Long Island news paper Xewsday, "1 would give it tao much an i 1 weald have il on its knees, miserable, greedy and sick . . ." To assc. s M. S.ein beck's judgement that ' on all lewis" our socie'.y is "rigged" ai.d has been corrupted by "cyni cal immorali.y." THE N'FAV RE PUBLIC invhed comment by the Reverend Thurston X. Davis, edi tor of- America magazine, and o;hets. WUh the permission of THE NEW REPUBLIC, the Da !y Tar Heel herewith icprints Fadier Davis' remarks as they appeared in thai journal's edi'.ion c.n Febr uary b"). hMlO. The Editors. HAVE WE GONE SOFT? Like a Sirong and vigorous per son suddenly stricken in middle life, we appear obsessed with a laleiiil diagnosis which tells us we are sick and will surely die un less we somehow change the habi tual pat.ern of our lives. And. as diseased people often do. we talk at great leng'h about the latest chance remark dropped by the doctor. The malady is variously described. Columbia President Grayson Kirk's verdict is "spiri tual flabbiness". Alan Drury in Advise and Consent, writes' of our time as the Age of the Shrug, and stresses the "dry rot" every per ceptive American .senses in the air around him. Professor Charles A. Siepmann, who heads the New York City branch of the Ameri can Civil Liberties Union, de clared only the other day: "We're breeding a new type of human being - a guy with a full belly, and empty mind and a hollow heart. I see them walking about, and 1 don't like them one bit." All this gives added point to John Steinbeck's letter to Gov ernor Stevenson. To "dear Adlai," Steinbeck transmits his two first impressions of the USA of 1959 (i: lirs;. "a creeping, all pervad ing nere gas of immorality": .-eeonJ. "a nervous restlessness; a hunger, a thirst, a yearning for something unknown'- perhaps mo rality." Then as afterthoughts, two further impessions: "the iolence, cruelty, and hypocrisy symptomatic of a people which has too much," and "the surly ill temper" that afflicts "humans when .they are frightened." "Mainly. Adlai. I am troubled by the cynical immorality of my country. I don't think it can sur vive on this basis." Where do we go to gather evi dence on our alleged decadence, immorality and materialism? We might pick up the tavel supple men; in ou Sunday New York Times, and glance at the mid winter ads for hotels and motels along the neon-bright strip of Mi ami Beach. Here, in one concen trated spree of vulgarity, we move from star-studded offers of Fun. Fun. Fun, at Ixw Iaw Kates- with "authentic Polynesian Lu aus" thrown in fee at one addess all the way to siren assurances that if we reserve Now at $16 daily per person then Paradise 'double occupancy) Is So Near At Hand! This sort of thing. I suppose, is materialism, though it 'is some what too obvious to be named de cadence. But it isn't merely the -Miamis of the world that are is sue. If Steinback, and all the other critics are to be credited, this moral miasma which afflicts us is well-night univesal. K is the fly-now-pay-late urge. It's the itch mate birihs. the high incidence of broken homes; the surge of men tal illness, the percentage of youth rcjec.ea by die armeJ sevices, phenomena like the current prac tice of cheating in college e : animations these and other ca.a and studies give some sort of an ii.at'A. what else is neeueJ? Eugene Kinkead. an editor of The New Yorker, has written a book entitled In Every War But Ore i Norton. It attempts to an alyze th- hundreds of cubic yards o4 documents thai the Department of thr Army assembled in its deadly serious taoit to find cut what wen; wring wi.h American pris;ncrs-c,f-war in Korea. Kink ead reveals, amid much oilier data, that the 22.) Turks who were captured and interned in Korea ah managed ;o survive their im prisanmem. and not a single one became a collaborator. One-third oi our boys, on the other hand, became collaborators: and 3:"t of them died. The Army found that GI's often abandoned fellow-American; who were wounded; thev more about the lot of -Puerto Ri car.s in our cities; if, having done cur excoriating, we were pre paid to sacrifice a slice oi our time or a touch of our comfort to the common good of the free world and the righJng of injustices and inequities here at home. A false note is sounded, too, by the ionization that in large part cur cciicjrn origina.e.- in fear that we ::-.:.. soon be overtaken, ceo., .nie illy, by the purposeful Sovic U..ion. Can we honestly say our fear in die u c;ida:ion ol God fearing men Icir for ourselves and our sou's and our fate, for the harvest of ou.- sins and cur wrc ciied coniusLns? Or is it nothing but a' camou'laged lust to din g on to the very pos sessions we protest are our un doing? There is reason to suspect thai: it may be the latter, that we are really worried about is that the whole kit and caboodle of our American way of life missiles to credit cards, Cadillacs and pop up toasters, our freedom, fun. ni ters and foolishness is about to cursed their officers: the strong go dawn the drain. If so. then we for the fast buck, for the irre sponsible pleasure, for the short cut to power or payola or pride ful status. It's ih'j clever dodge, the inside track, the the deal, the gimmick, the angle, the guy we know who'll "fix" it. It is the "fil-tc-" mentality:, have the fun, but avoid the lung cancer or the preg nancy. It is the omnipresent yen to push somebody else out of the way and become the fellow who's got everything. To quote Profes sor Siepmann again: "This amo rali.y i-s endemic. Society is shot through with it. You'd be amazed at how many students said Char les Van Doren was right. Any thing for No. 1." How does one go about corrupt ing the moral strength or weak ness of an entire society? Crime and delinquency statistics, the divorce rate, the blight of porno graphy, the rising rate of illigiti- tcok food from the weak: in cer tain cases Americans sick with clysentary were rolled out into the cold to die: and 'this was done, not by their Chinese captors, but by fellow GI's. Turks, however, kept a high morale, shared food, and nursed their sick back to health. Heaven knows, the image of America that is retraced through these and other available statis tics is enough to shake the most complacent of us. Nevertheless, the picture is incomplete. The big. bold headlines ah. dear, freedom of the press! tells us about the mad bombers, arsonist, sex man iacs, kidnapers, juvenile murder ers, junkies and extorti nists among us. They rarely high'ight the millions of hard-working and dedicated people still in the lar.d: surgeons, nurses, nuns, civil ser vants, artists, social workers, pub lic school teachers clergymen. lire men, policemen truck drivers, scholars and plain, everyday, in dispensable fathers and mothers of growing families. Then, too, a certain aroma of phoniness creeps at times into these discussions, making it all the more difficult to assess our true moral stature. We could well have done without the tears and congratulatory salves that greeted young Van Daren's public confes sion, which to many, by the way. was the most meretricious inci dent in the entire quiz-show mess. John Cogley, in theCommonweal, said Van Doren "clid his greatest mischief and was guilty of the most shameful abuse of public confidence, not when he accepted money under false pretenses, but when he made his belated con fession," which, he went on, while "humble" in the approved TV and Madison Avenue manner, "reeked with pride," And. frankly, are we doing any better at genuinely unburdening our consciences than Van Doren did? We feel clean and noble when we excoriate the materialism around us. We manage to pin the blame on some scapegoat work ing wives, or the New Deal, or high taxes, or John Dewey and the teachers colleges leaving very little responsibility at cur doorsteps. Our excoriations would be far more convincing if we were readier with tax dollars for de fense and for economic aid to less materialistic peoples; if we fought harder for the Negro; if our con sciences were a bit more troubled over irrationalities in our immigra tion laws; if we worried a lift'e do have reason to be concerned for ourselves and our future. Our trouble is not simply that some Americans have air condi tioners in their cars, or that an increasing number of our citizens are making down-payments on cabin cruisers. There number is and will remain limited: even in our affluent society there is still plenty of personal poverty. The obligation cf transcending and mastering material possessions presses harder on the few than on the many The crasser brand of materialism, therefore, can be dis counted us a real problem for the majority. There is. however, a subtler problem which does touch us all. It goes by various names and is all the following things at. once: a loss of faith, an obfuscation of reason, a failure of nerve, a loss c; confidence, an intellectual and moral vacuum, a failue to main tain ou grip on the Big Idea about i. in selves and tr.e world w e in habit. What is really wrong, it seems fo me, has to do with onr loss of this Big Idea, by which I mean our loosening grasp on the mean ing and purpose of human life in relation to a real order of objec tive and transcendent being. Our problem is that we no longer know who or what we are. We no long er colletively see ourselvs as a people bound together by common affirmations, c o m m o n assump tions, common loyalties to a com mon shared universe of values. For years we have viewd this American pluralism as a product of our freedom and as a source of immense strength. Now it is slowly dawning upon us that it can become a debilitating disease. This malady, which is now epi demic, affects rich and poor, .young and old. It is as though all at once we had lost our identifi cation papers. To make matters worse, we have not only let the Big Idea slip away, but it is no longer polite or even permissable to raise any of the Big Questions men have always asked about the Big Ideas. What are these Big Questions which, in the contemporary at mosphere of cur official agnosti cism, may be asked and answered only behind the doors of the "heme, church and synagogue"? To paraphrase a list cf such ques tions prepared by Father John Courtney Murray, S. J., for Re ligion and the S'ate University i University of Michigan Press, 1S53I: Wh'Te does man rank in the order of being, if there is an order of being? What is the nature of man? Is it of a piece with the nature of the cosmic universe? Is it to be understood in terms of the laws of the universe, what ever they may be? Or is there a difference between man and the rest of nature? Is the nature of man spiritual in a unique sense? What is man's destiny? Is it to be found and fulfilled beyond time in "another world"? What is the "sense" of history? Does his tory have some kind of finality? Or is the notion of "finality" meaningless? What can a man know? What do you mean when you say. "I know"? Are there varying degrees of knowledge and certitude? Can man's knowledge and love reach realities that are transcendent to the world of mat ter, space and time? Is there a God? What is God? Dees Gcd have a care for man? Has Gcd entered the world of human his tory to accomplish a "redemp tion"? What is meant by "salva tion"? What is meant by freedom, justice, order, law, authority, power, peace, virtue, sin. morality, religion? Just now, in the United States and throughout the West, the e is obviously no consensu, cs to how these and similar qres.ions are to be answered. There is not even a shared language of words and concepts with which the se parate components of our socio y might begin to be able to discuss them. Yet, as recently as 75 years ago. in the academic world as well as in the realm cf public af fairs, the ancient heri age of such words and concepts, products of the scholastic trcdiiLn, was still in uneasy but de fact possession. Today, except in sor.u of our col leges, the lines that once bound us to that heritage have been broken. Once the ancient words and idas had been wi .tly discredited, a new lexicon of discourse took their place. It was a tongue which had been coming into more and more common usage since the 18th Century, the language of .Mod ernityof science, experimental ism and positivism. Until almost yesterday, who would have dream ed of disputing Modernity? And yet, though it was so firmly in control just a little while back, today, in Father Murray's phrase, Modernity is "dissolving in. dis enchantment." The disenthrone ment has created a strange new situation, a sort of ideological in terregnum. The seals of ligitimacy, so to speak, have disappeared from its head and tongue. Though it still exercises a kind of care taker government in our univer sities and elsewhere, the modern idiom of positivism is reenacting the old story of the emperor's clothes. It is this sudden turn of events in the world of ideas, this break down of the flimsy consensus of Modernity, that has brought us to that condition of moral vacuum which John Steinbeck and others perceive and deplore. More or less clearly we today realize that a post-modern era has com menced and that we are entering it in a state of intellectual naked ness. The pressing need for some sort of revival of the "public philosophy" of the West has come home to us. This, it would seem. is what these gathering storms of pretest and criticism are all about. Half a dozen years ago, in his essay on The Public Philosophy, Walter Lippmann insisted that in our "pluraiized and fragmenting society a public philosophy with common and binding principles" must be salvaged and" reinstated. If we fail to revive and restore the consensus we once possessed. Lippmann wanred.". ... then the free and democratic nations face the totalitarian challenge without a public philosophy which free men believe in and cherish, with no public faith beyond a mere of ficial agnosticism, neutrality and indifference. There is not much doubt how the struggle is likely to end if it lies between those who. believing, care very much and those who, lacking belief, cannot care very much." We know from the chapter he contributed to Walter Lippman and His Times (Harcourt, Brace1, a volume published last year to honor Mr. Lippmann on his -seventieth birthday, that Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., was more than a little scandalized by the stress the veteran columnist placed on the necessity of shoring up the "public philosophy" as a condition of the survival of our society. Mr. Lippmann had writ ten: "I do not contend, though I hope, that the decline of Western society will be arrested if the teachers in our schools and uni versities come back to the great tradition of the public philosophy. But I do contend that the decline, which is already far advanced, cannot be arrested if the preval ing philosophers opposed this re storation and revival . . . ." However, as Schlesinger's re action demonstrates and he is not alone in his appraisal of Lipp mann's thesis the academic world is not as yet in the mood to accept the responsibility for the difficult but still feasible task of retoring what Lippmann calls "a common conception of law and order which possesses a universal validity." Meantime, each" fresh week and month of our now lengthening post modern experience serves to sharpen the issue and drive home its urgency. If we are really de termined to fill the present void, we shall rediscover the words and begin to conceive the ideas with which to ask once again the Big Questions that every generation must answer. Thus, conceivably, if time is given us. we may even reclaim the Big Idea. If war is too important to be left to the gen erals, this present dilemma oi ours is too terrible to be entrust ed to the professors. li 1 is HAVE YOU REMEMBERED National Society for (irippU-d Children ' and Adults 202.J W. Of,'dfii Ave. Chicago 12, 111. KiJaMl , i- , - . i I . . , ;: . ij Ct CO0H6E. (M, LUCKIcR V, V;.'. .. ( W ' ' 'il 150 ITSv ( '.'('; I.':,"; U H THAN A LOT OF D06S.... AT !,;!;''!.; -Th'-' 'il :'., Ill ill 7 TOtf TO B K;:.;h I LEAST I HAVE A DOG H0U5E J i ill wilipi - sf. tM j0M- 1 "V r ; stifii! mi m4!wi i W 3 X u CO - o o o Q. ?2 v I - Y W5 V tl.-' ... A MATCH. f 5 3CV HAS 63TTA WAV'S A program -" vis ecrrA cc,s SOWS Tr v 0UTAuAIM5T lf TVAT'5 OIP HAT'- wg NEW TWIST. IT'5 Cs WAY TO GST FHiMOUH-r i 1 iv .' i i . 1 -,-. v - At TVS 0SVSAL " US0. -w 1 I Aid.' ttfVrry I 4i7 r I J Ti VI
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
March 1, 1960, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75