Page 4-B
The Chapel Hill Weekly
"If the matter is important and rare of your ground,
never fear to be in the minority.” i
ORVILLE CAMPBELL, PriUMter JAMES SHMAKKS, Gmeni Manager
IPofeHshed every Sunday tad Wednesday fey the Chayel B| MMMUag Company, lae.
IZC East Rosemary Street. Ctuvat HDI, N. C.
P. O. Bex fU ~ Telephone $67-7041
Subscription rates (payable in advance and Including N. C. sales tax)—ln North Carolina:
One year, $5.15; six months, $3.00; Area months, $2.06. Elsewhere in the United States: One
year, $6.00; six months, $4.00; three months, SI.OO. Outside United States: One year, SIO.OO.
Another Dab Os Mud On The Business Escutcheon
Chapel Hill merchants have been mis
cast in the role of villain so many times
ior so long now that you might expect
one more dab of mud on the business com
munity’s likeness to be dismissed with a
philosophical shrug.
To those perennial charges based on
the captive clientele myth and other gra
tuitous slurs that seems to follow as reg
ularly as season follows season, perhaps
a shrug is the most sensible reaction.
Reason, unfortunately, is seldom a satis
factory rebuttal to unreason.
In the case of the current civil rights
trauma, however, the misrepresentation
of Chapel Hill’s businessmen, as a group,
should not be allowed to stand.
There are, indeed, about half a dozen
substantial Chapel Hill businesses and
about half a dozen joints that still prac
tice segregation. All other businesses in
Chapel Hill, well over 150, do not have
any discriminatory policies and do not
practice discrimination.
More than ninety per cent of our mer
chants have renounced segregation for
themselves. In addition, they deplore the
segregation policies of the dozen die
hards. Beyond that, no group, excepting
our clergymen, has worked harder than
Chapel Hill’s businessmen to eliminate
public discrimination.
Their methods, it is true, have not been
as sensational as downtown marches and
picket lines and civil disobedience. The
One Or Two Random Thoughts On Rousing Rabble
Americans, especially Southern Am
ericans, have never cottoned to outside
agitators, whatever the cause for which
they agitated.
Take Citizen Genet as a case in point.
No sooner had the French helped do in
the English at Yorktown and had a little
revolt of their own than M. Genet, as the
Revolutionary Government’s minister to
the U. S., began drumming up support
for French ambitions in Europe. His
zeal earned him the distinction of being
the first diplomat declared persona non
grata by the United States. He solved
it nicely by resigning his post and be
coming a naturalized American citizen.
Not qvery agitator is so flexible. The
late judge Samuel Liebowitz mulehead
edly insisted on a fair trial for nine
Negro boys tried in Scottsboro, Alabama
and took part of his fee in one of the
most vicious and concerted personal
villifications on record. He' became the
prototype of the “Jew-Y£nkee-trouble
maker lawyer” one finds in some other
wise legitimate Southern fiction of the
immediate past.
We mention these two because they
represent something of a lesson on the
nature of agitation and the varied re
sponse their actions elicit in America.
Now & Then by Bill Prouty
One night while televiewing a
late movie I dozed off (is there
anybody who hasn’t done this on
occasion?) and the next thing I
knew I was sitting straight up in
my chair, startled into fitful con
sciousness by a cacophony of bla
tant noises and brilliant flashing
Hgfcta.
shown on the screen was a
caricatured and animated line
drawing representing a man who
was obviously in excruciating
pain. And for good reason, be
cause at regular intervals a
heavy mallet was crashing down
upon his unprotected skull, ca
denced to the strident exhorta
tions of a shrill pitchman.
As the pitchman continued his
spiel at about twice the decibels
of the regular program, extolling
the “double-the-strength” virtues
of the incomparable So-and-So,
the pounding mallet slowly faded
out of the picture and flowing
dotted lines (obviously represent
ing pain) began pouring from
the head of the vastly relieved
figure, whose now upturned
mouth and sparkling eyes spoke
eloquently of So-and-So's unique
healing powers!
1 was so disgusted with the
businessmen have worked quietly, some
times privately and anonymously. They
have worked in small groups and individ
ually, in man-to-man confrontations with
the doaen diehards.
They have committed themselves to
this work, regardless of the fact that
they are no more responsible—morally,
professionally or otherwise—for some
one else’s business policies than are you
and I. They are, in fact, deeply commit
ted to the ideal of equal rights and are
acting directly !n response to that com
mitment.
The businessmen’s aim is the same as
that of the clergymen, the Human Rela
tions Committee, the Mayor’s Committee
on Integration, the Committee for Open
Business, and all of the citizens of this
community who want to see true equality.
If their methods are somewhat less flam
bouyant, it doesn’t necessarily follow that
they will be any less effective.
The businessmen’s efforts have frequ
ently been met with open attacks, carping
criticism and implications of guilt by as
sociation (the only association being that
they are merchants and so are the die
hards). This, we submit, is totally un
fair.
Instead of recrimination, Chapel Hill’s
businessmen deserve our gratitude and
respect. If the rest of the community
were as actively dedicated to equal rights,
the present problem would probably van
ish.
The outside meddler, however innocuous
or sinister his motives, is not and never
has been in good odor.
Much of the present race dilemma has
been ascribed by White Citizens Coun
cils to needlenosing outsiders coming in
and making trouble. This, they would
have us believe, is a purely local prob
lem, to be worked out by local folk in
a sane, sensible way free from pressure
by rabblerousers who don’t understand
the situation.
There is something to this, as in any
argument that implies the necessity for
intimate and specific knowledge of diffi
culty in its own context. It seemed that
people here were hewing to this principle
until Roy Harris of Georgia spoke to a
White Supremacy rally in Durham this
past weekend. There is little question
but what Georgia and North Carolina
have their points in common, and also
that they are distinct and apart in a
number of ways. Mr. Harris is unavoid
ably an outsider, and since he spoke
about a local problem, we are left to
conclude either that his Durham audi
ence abandoned principle in the name
of expediency, or that there never was
a principle that stood between local mat
ters and extraneous meddling.
pitch that i snapped oft the tele
vision and picked up the evening
paper and read a while before
going to bed, all the time vowiag
that I’d never, but never, ever
use So-and-So headache medicine
even if my head was beating like
a bongo drum at a voodoo rally!
Is, then, load and exaggerated
advertising more effective than
calm, truthful, and necessarily
less obtrusive advertising? Is it
true that the Big Exaggeration,
if repeated often enough and loud
enough, will be generally accept
ed, even by people traditionally
accustomed to freedom of choice?
In other words, can calm, cool,
essentially truthful appeal com
pete successfully with gaudy fev
ered, exhortation in television?
I sincerely believe it can, there
by bringing great relief to the
serious televiewer and to the ad
vertiser alike. Take one example
of the soft candid approach, for
instance: There’s a well-known
foreign small automobile whose
advertisers tell their televiewers
that their product looks like a
beetle, is definitely not pretty,
never changes its lines, BUT
that it is as durable and as eco
nomically operated a p— — t*r
Wednesday, July 31, 1963
automobile as can be found, and
has the highest trade-in valuation
of any car on the market.
This is told the TV fan in a
soft, unembellished manner, and.
frankly, comes as a great relief
on many programs.
Does this sensible, though quite
•nuanal, approach sell? When
driving to work tomorrow morn
ing, just look around you in traf
fic and you’ll see that it does, or
that it has, since you may well
be driving one of the little
“beetles" yourself!
But even if we have to live
with the clangor of the So-and-
So pitch, and the cool candid ap
proach is yet a far way off, the
former is to me preferable to
the ad-less state-supervised pro
gramming dealt to captive audi
ences in many countries about
the world.
Advertising (In whatever form)
is absolutely essential to our en
vied capitalistic society. And
besides, a shoot-’em-up Western
once In a while, even with rau
cous ads, may be better than
no ads at all and nothing but
serious music, philosophy, poli
tics and propaganda. What do
you tUakt
Letters To The Editor
More On Sir Clarence, Civil Rights
Dear Sir:
There has come to my attention
this morning what purports to be
an editorial from your paper titl
ed "The Tragic Spring of Clar
ence Stone.” It would appear
from that editorial that your pa
er is emulating, or attempting
to follow, the liberal, leadership
of several of the big dailies in
North Carolina in castigating
Senate President Clarence Stone
and other members of the North
Carolina Legislature who voted
for the bill passed by the recent
Session of the General Assembly
the apparent purpose ol which
was to slow down the indoctrina
tion of North Carolina youth in
State Educational institutions with
Communist propaganda. Evident
ly, yoti and many of your brother
newspapermen do not agree with
that philosophy. If you do not
agree, at least you could so an
nounce to the State of North Ca
rolina and the world at large with
editorials propounding your philo
sophy, if it be favorable to Com
munism, Socialism, or whatever
it be, without using your editorial
page to try to undermine, destroy
the character of, and stultify one
of the outstanding citizens of
North Carolina; a man who has
spent a good part of his Kfe in the
political arena of North Carolina
fighting for legislation designed
f: -- , Zdmm
MM,
SpEsKflH HKSSnRiPS
JjgF : ''
kHRIIIWw
MI jSPSSrf
J§*V ns*. *
-mbh wBES
• :■ ■
1 81, T
V. •: *' > ■ ~
-': ,W : ‘~ ' ' ,K •••'•• ' '
r jL JH
M -LJikdßb^. .. yiS&i 'wm. j
The Davie Poplar On The University Campus
Has Success Spoiled Sir Clarence’s Gag Law?
THE GREENSBORO DAILY NEWS
If the views of Senate president Clar
ence Stone of Stoneville are accurately
reported in a recent interview in the
Winston-Salem Journal, it may be that
he has now had second thoughts about
the ban on Communist speakers that the
Senate helped write into law under his
gavel.
In the first place, Senator Stone ap
parently dislikes being “blamed” for the
passage of the bill. Some newspaper re
ports from the scene indicated that while
there were clear calls for a division by
standing vote on the day the bill was
hurriedly passed, Senator Stone con
veniently failed to hear them. “If there
was a call for division, I didn't hear it,”
he nonetheless told Bill Connelly of the
Winston-Salem Journal, "and I hear pret
ty well.”
It would be impudent to suggest that
Senator Stone has bo quickly forgotten
the detail*./# the bCl’s passage. Even so,
his denials do not remove certain ques
tions :
Why was the bill introduced on a busy
afternoon late in the session when a
number of Senate opponents were in
conference committee?
Is it true, or not, that Senator Stone
51 to advance the best welfare of
North Carolina and its citizens.
Long after you and those like
you have passed from the scene,
the work of men like Clarence
Stone will stand out in the history
of this State as the foundation
upon which North Carolina grew
to be one of the leading states
in the nation in every phase of
good government.
Contrary to your editorial view
point. I say it was the love for
the University Os North Carolina,
the other educational institutions
of the State, the citizens general
ly, and our young people especial
ly which prompted Clarence
Stone and his friends to support
the bill in. question.
1 supported the bill which you
referred to in your editorial, and
will continue to do so as long as
I am a member of the General
Assembly of North Carolina, and
after that, will support the philo
sophy as set out in that bill so
long as I live. Prom the public
forum response, and from the
response of people verbally
throughout the State, I think the
majority of the people of North
Carolina are with President Stone
and the members of the General
Assembly in this matter, and
nothing you and the other editors
of the papers in North Carolina
can do or say will alter the fact.
violated the impartiality of the chair by
calling the bill “a good one”?
Is it true, or not, that Senator Stone
knew of the bill’s existence and knew’
when it would be introduced?
Even more interesting however is Sen
ator Stone’s statement that “If they (the
opponents of the bill) want to repeal it,
that's all right with me, but I don’t think
they can.” Does this mean that the sen
ator’s feeling in favor of the bill has be
come lukewarm, or that he has had sec
ond thoughts about its wisdom ? If its re
peal means so little as it seems to Sen
ator Stone, it would mean a great deal to
the state college administrators who
have been entangled in endless embar
rassments by it.
Repeal would be a welcome testimony,
too, to North Carolina’s belief in freedom
of speech. And it would certainly be a
courtesy to college administrators, Uni
versity of North Carolina trustees, and
the Board of Higher Education.
All these groups are most intimately
involved In state-supported higher edu
cation. It is their integrity and judgment
that the ill-conceived law has impugned.
If Senator Stone is as indifferent to its
repeal as he seems, perhaps he will join
in not opposing that repeal
It has been my observation over
the years that the poisoned pens
of editors of newspapers and peri
odicals do not affect the right
thinking of the majority of the
people in North Carolina.
Your libelous editorial should
be aired in the courts of North
Carolina, but President Stone pro
bably would not give your editori
al the dignity that an action
against you ami your paper might
conVey.
Yours truly.
Garland S. Garriss
Mr. Garris*, a rwidwS as Tray,
is a State Senator from North
Carolina’s Wh District.
Dear Sir;
Examine with me a few
thoughts,. ideas, questions and
facts regarding our race prob
lems and the social revolution
that is associated with themrfls>
amine with logic and careful
open-minded consideration.
We, in this country during the
past several years have became
very minority conscious and
have become very sensitive to
the rights of all those that are
discriminated against. I am not
offering a criticism, I am simply
Stating a fact. (We are afraid of
offending our Jewish neighbors
over school prayers and we find
that the Supreme Court is
brought in, changing old and
formally accepted practices. Per
haps this is good, perhaps it is
bad but it is a fact to be dealt
with. We are afraid of offending
our Negro neighbors and we are
about to enact rules to change
this. We are entertaining the
idea of adopting rules to govern
shopkeepers in their selection of
customers.
The above are stated facts.
Examine now the logic of these
facts as related to their overall
purpose and their ultimate ef
fect. Also think about the jus
tice involved to both sides of
the question.
Would you, in fairness, say
that the ardent segregationists
are a minority in this country
today? They are in fact? Would
you agree that the ardent segre
gationist shopkeepers ere a mi
nority in this country today.
They are in fact just that. How
is It then that we, the majority,
are able to override their desires
with desires of our own, just be
cause we think ourselves to be
right? Would this not be offend
ing A minority group? If we
override one minority group be
cause we are sensitive to the
desires of another minority group
what have we, in effect, accom
plished? (Where have we come?
We have only exchanged minor
ity groups. What is the logic in
that?
If we suppress the shopkeeper
in order to avoid the suppression
of thd Negro we have effected
. no major social change at all.
We only have one more stupid
law on the books, end a little
less freedom for everybody. Each
and every single time a law is
passed a certain measure of free
dom is lost to us all.
It seems to me that we are
reinacting the great moral purge
of the 1920's that led to prohibi
tion with just one exception:
Freedom cannot be bootlegged
and once it is lost it will be
gone forever. We have worked
our way along this far and have
evolved as a semi-socialist state
already and we seem to be
charting our course in that di
rection with ever-increasing vig
or. If we work hard enough in
that direction we will find our
selves waking; up one morning
with all of our freedoms lost
and we will find ourselves join
ing the Union of Socialist Re
public in the suppression of all
human freedoms.
All freedom or groups who
favor this encroachment of our
basic overall freedotn, in their
own personal interests, are de
siring freedom at the cost of
freedom. Such is the stupid logic
of lawmakers who favor laws
for everything.
These are moral, ethical and
social questions, not legal ones,
and the only solution will be
found in a moral and social re
awakening by us all. These are
not questions to be answered by
Democrats, Republicans, Jews,
Negroes or Gentiles but by all
BILLY ARTHUR
Knowing not whereof we speak,
oftimes we’ve made fun of the
women. Today, however, we
speak of men as authority on the
subject and as one. We’ve inti
mated in the past that women are
unique individuals; today we’ll
show you men are just as queer.
Os course, some men are
gentlemen; but a gentleman is a
man you don’t know very well.
Some are conceited and wrap
ped in themselves; therefore they
make sorry looking bundles.
Some are like the railroad sta
tion agent the colored farmer
found, according to the late Judge
W. C. Harris, when he went to
make a shipment. The station
was more often used as a flag
stop than anything else, and the
agent handed the farmer the pa
pers and ordered, “Sit down over
there and fill ’em out yourself.
I’m busy.”
The colored fellow, unable to
read and write, summed up the
situation with: “I was alius told
the littler the station, the bigger
a I ——a t»
uic agent.
He was the type which Inspired
the Moravian Falls Fool Killer
to observe: “Don’t be deceived
by appearances. Some of the
loudest crows you hear at 4
o clock in the morning come from
scrub roosters.”
There are other types. Take
the man with his nose tc the
grindstone. He doesn’t have it
always in someone else’s busi
ness. As James Robinson wrote
in the July 10, 1897. Durham Sun:
“When a man has learned his own
faults and can see their enorm
ity through the same glass by
which he measures another’s
hag battle eflife ia wsu,’’ -
mankind working together in the
-greater interest of mankind.
V’illiam L. Simpson
Dear Sir:
Once more we have the spec
tacle in Chapel Hill of communi
ty leaders abdicating their po
tential rote as mediators in the
current racial crisis. After a
temporary gesture of willingness
to help erase injustice in this
city, the business leaders stayed
away en masse Sunday from a
crucial meeting of the Mayor’s
Committee on Human Relations.
How can these men accuse civ
il rights leaders of "irresponsible
behavior" when they themselves
are guilty of the height of irre
sponsibility in avoiding the most
important issue facing our com
munity? Leaders are expected
to lead; they are expected to
seek solutions to public prob
lems; and they are expected to
keep their promises. Instead, our
business leaders have tried to run
away from community problems
and have even failed to keep an
important appointment with the
Mayor’s Committee. By such
standards, the behavior of the
Committee for Open Business has
been exemplary in recognizing
a community ill and in trying
forthrightly to combajt that ill.
Obviously, the only dependable
way to eradicate the evils of seg
regation in Chapel Hill is for the
Aldermen to pass an open public
accommodations law. The Aider
men, too have been slow to ex
ercise leadership. But they have
been elected by the public to
solve our community problems.
Certainly, they can see now that
no one else—not even our busi
ness leaders—can be looked to
for the solution.
Sincerely yours,
M. Richard Cramer
c
Dear Sir;
I should like to state, with
enormous enthusiasm and pride
in a fellow Chapel Hillian, that
Patricia Hunter’s letter in your
issue of last Sunday is without
any doubt the most moving and
eloquent plea for integration that
I have been confronted with dur
ing my twenty-two years as a
Southerner. It teaches all of us
an enormous lesson ... a les
son which the leaders in the
movement seem to have forgot
ten. Not only is the letter elo
quent, but its very lyricism
makes it hold its own with any
contemporary prose-poetry.
Some way should be found to
have it published and widely dis
tributed, not only as a plea, but
as a tract of our times. It
should not die in a letters col
umn. It should, somehow, be
come part of • our literary heri
tage.
Is it not frightening that here
in Chapel Hill, Miss Hunter felt
compelled tc introduce her “fic
tional” Mrs. Aileen Landis in
this manner: Mrs. Landis <whose
name has been changed ter her
protection) . . .” Have we really
come to this in our good town?
Kai Jurgensen
But no two men are alike, I've
pointed out in a bit of doggerel:
He aimlessly roams the streets
And nothing is fit to eat;
The ole boy looks let down—
His wife is out of town!
He’s flirty, gay 'n hearty,
An’ ready for a party;
Today he has no frown—
His wife is out of town!
“Talk about wimmen being
quair,’’ The Fool Killer said in
May 1913. “They are sorter, but
the men are purty tolerable quair,
too, when you come to think about
it.
“Now you take the man at his
own home. If he had to climb up
on a high stool in front of a
table with no doth on It and eat
his meals that way, wouldn’t he
raise cain In a hurry? You bet!
But the old fool will go to a cheap
restaurant, crawl up on a greasy
stool between two dirty tramps
and gobble down a hunk of raw
mule and a bowl of soup made
out of dishrags and rainwater and
swear he enjoys it all.
“Let a man’s wife at home of
fer him a piece of chicken which
she or one of the children had
taken a bite of, and he will hol
ler his head off. But he will get
out in a crowd and borrow a
chaw tobacker from the first
stranger he meets, and that’s all
right.
“At home he won’t drink milk
from out of a glass from which
one of the family has been drink
ing, but just call him back into
the stall of a livery stable and
pull out a bottle and he will stick
the neck of the bottle six inches
down hit throat in order to get a
swig.
“Verily, mao is a quair duck. 1 *