gIW £ir4igan &ilg
Seventieth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG. * ANN ARBOR, MIcH. * Phone NO 2-3241

1

Pinocchio



:,
r.

I

"When Opinions Are Free
Truth Will Prevail"

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

UESDAY; APRIL 19, 1960

NIGHT EDITOR: SUSAN FARRELL


Enthusiastic Student Group
Takes Up Challenge

;
k"
t', t t
+
.e"'"".
.!
. ,,./
J.
u .


0#
"Adi2

t
Y
Ali.
4
jw
r
9

SINCE IT has held its first meeting, a Chal-
lenge program at the University is no longer
an abstract idea but a reality.
As such, it is much more easy to evaluate
It in terms of its aims and how it appears they
will be carried out.
Challenge is designed to inform the student
of his alternatives for action on the major
issues of our time. It does this through a series
of lectures, seminars and small discussions
that are directed to the student-not in the
form of an academic question, but as a chal-
lenge to action on either side of a problem.
The objective is a lessening of apathy, more
than any particular political platform.
THE APPEALING open-mindedness, enthusi-
asm and intelligence of the program were
matched by the poeple at the first meeting
last Friday. For those at the meeting, especially
those who have spent many years on this
campus, the meeting may have been the high
point of enlightened student interest in the
history of the University.
The most important fact about the meeting
Purse-uasion
grHEMEDIEVAL communes* often revived
old, discarded or fairly irrelevant laws to
suppress student activities. Like littering
laws . .
But the students always come out on top
because they threatened that they and their
money would migrate to another town if the
restrictions .iere not lifted.
What are we waiting for?
-P.D.S.

is not its material accomplishments-the meet-
ing accomplished nothing of significance, but
the obvious evidence that there is enough stu-
dent interest in the project to actively support
it. In addition to the large number of stu-
dents, there were also an encouragingly large
number of faculty members at the meeting.
Given the evidence of support from both
students and faculty, the next step for the
program is to prove itself worthy of this sup-
port. The great concern with choosing a first
topic, which occupied a great bulk of the
meeting's time, is a sign of a sincere desire of
the founders to do a conscientious job. It is
also a weakness, however, because it showed
what amounted to a fetish for carrying out
the program on paper before putting it into
practice.
THE ENTHUSIASM which greeted the mo-
tion to start action by establishing the first
challenge discussion of a topic and the decision
to arrange smaller, more informal meetings
may be good signs. Another evidence of a
desire for paper perfection, however, was a
member's proposal that actual beginning of
the discussions would have to be postponed
until next semester because of impending
finals.
If Challenge can respond immediately to the
enthusiasm shown at the Friday meeting and
get off the ground, it may become one of the
most stimulating organizations on this campus.
If it gets bogged down by its large member-
ship in haggling over such issues as the best
place to hold its discussions, howeve±', then it
will become no more than a grand forum like
SGC-with any political power besides.
-RALPH KAPLAN

COMPOSERS' FORUM:
Present New Works
In Student Program
WORKS BY eight student composers were performed last night in
Auditorium A, followed by a discussion inviting comments and
impressions by fellow\students and the general public.
There are several problems involved in discussing works presented
on such a program. Many of the pieces performed were parts of
larger works and could be better evaluated if heard within the frame-

.4 " 'WOO
//T

N1,
r YA2

91 "1

V 4 '4,v -

01 "_
low&


___-.

6

...

PICKET ARRESTS:
.Prosecution Unconstitutional?

TODAY AND TOMORROW
Stevenson and Kennedy
By WALTER LIPPMANN

MR .NIXON arrived in San Francisco on
Monday and, speaking as a professional
politician, he commented upon the Presidential
contest in the Democratic party. If Sen. Ken-
hair," it will "all be over but the shouting." For,
nedy wins in West Virginia, even "only by a
says Mr. Nixon, if Sen. Kennedy can win the
primary election in an overwhelming Protest-
ant state like West Virginia, the convention is
bound to nominate him.
As Mr. Nixon would then be Sen. Kennedy's
opponent, it is not unreasonable to wonder
what inspired him to intervene in the Demo-
cratic contest and to take such a strong stand
for Kennedy. Mr. Nixon is a man who thinks
twice before he makes a political move. And
this boost for Kennedy is quite a big move.
What is in Mr. Nixon's mind? It is to provoke
a quarrel among the Democrats. His purpose is
to make insoluble the problem of the Demo-
crats, which is how to attract Catholics without
alienating too many Protestants.
The weapon used by Mr. Nixon is one that
Sen. Kennedy has, unfortunately, used him-
self. It is that is Sen. Kennedy can win a few
primaries, the Democrats must nominate him
or suffer retaliation from the Catholic voters.
Mr. Nixon's remarks in San Francisco were
neant to make this problem as troublesome
as possible by fixing it in the public mind that
if Sen. Kennedy is not nominated, it will not be
because there are more experienced men but
because he is a Catholic.
THE RELIGIOUS issue is an ugly and dan-
gerous one. But, as with a nettle, the best
thing to do is to grasp it firmly. Now that there
has been time to analyze the voting in Wis-
consin, there is no doubt that the religious is-
sue was central and decisive. The facts, as we
now know them, confirm Mr. Reston's eloquent
argument that the Wisconsin battle raised the
religious issue, and that "this is a national
question, beyond the borders of one state or
even the limits of this particular Presidential
election."
Let us look first at the evidence that the re-
ligious issue was dominant in Wisconsin. An
analysis of the vote, which I believe to be reli-
able, shows that in the ten counties with the
highest percentage of Catholic, Sen. Kennedy
won all ten. In six of these counties his margin
was 2-to-1 or better. On the other hand, in the
ten counties with the lowest percentage of
Catholics, Humphrey won all ten, and in six
of them his majority was 2-to-1or better. Fur-
thermore, in the twenty-five counties with less
than 20 per cent Catholic population Humphrey
won twenty of them and Kennedy won five.
IT IS OBVIOUS that all the Catholics did not
vote for Kennedy or all the Protestants for
Humphrey. But a great many did, and it will
be a miracle if the outcome in West Virginia
shows that there is no religious issue which di-
vides seriously the people of this country. It is,
moreover, too much to hope that the tendency
to bloc voting, already visible in the Wisconsin
primary, would not become much more acute
and virulent in the national election itself.

The Democrats have a great responsibility.
For, as Mr. Reston says, such a division of the
country "at this moment in history is in-
tolerable." Furthermore, the problem which
Sen. Kennedy has posed and which Vice Presi-
dent Nixon has now tried to envenom is a
soluble problem.
THE SOLUTION of the problem lies in nomi-
nating Sen. Kennedy for Vice-President. It
is true that once upon a time the Vice-Presi-
dency was regarded as a joke and beneath the
dignity of a strong politician. But the fact is
that in this centruy three Vice-Presidents have
become President. What is more, in the case of
Mr. Nixon the Vice-President is being nomi-
nated to run for President.
The office then is not one for which any man
is too grand, and certainly not any man who
is forty-three years old and has never occupied
any executive office.
Moreover, the nomination and election of a
Catholic to be Vice-President of the United
States would be an absolute destruction of the
taboo against electing a Catholic to the Presi-
dency. For the Vice-President is the unques-
tioned successor in case the President is dis-
abled. Nobody who objects to a Catholic in the
White House can vote for a Catholic for Vice-
President.
AT THE LEVEL of vote-getting, the nomina-
tion of Kennedy for Vice-President is the
best answer to the Democrats' dilemma. They
want to bring back the Catholic Democrats who
were attracted by Eisenhower. But they must
do this without precipitating a fierce division of
the party and of the country.
Now, there is good evidence, as Wisconsin
shows, that Kennedy can attract a large Catho-
lic vote. But there is no evidence that he can
do this without arousing a powerful Protestant
reaction. Even with a Kennedy landslide in
West Virginia, there would be no guarantee, in-
deed no assurance, that the country will not be
plunged into a dangerous religious controversy.
For what the West Virginia Protestant Demo-
crats will do in a primary is not a true measure
of what Protestant Republicans will do in an
election.
For this reason the Democrats have no rea-
son to accept the argument that with Kennedy
for President they will win and with Kennedy
for Vice-President they will lose. In 1956, Sen.
Kennedy was very anxious indeed to become
Vice-President on a ticket headed by Gov.
Stevenson, and the argument made at that
time was that this would attract Catholic vot-
ers. As against Nixon, who is so much. less
formidable than Eisenhower, why should the
argument not hold today?
WOULD SEN. KENNEDY accept the nomina-
tion for Vice-President if the Democratic
party leaders decided to offer it to him? There
is no reasonable doubt that he would accept.
For on what ground could he or would he re-
fuse? That he is a better vote-getter than Ste-
venson or Symington? We know that primaries,
like the one in Wisconsin, do not forecast the
nntional eletinns That he i smore ualified

By FRED STEINGOLD
TrODAY the Police Department
will decide whether to institute
criminal proceedings against the
fifteen persons arrested last Sat-
urday while distributing anti-dis-
crimination literature.
Should the police decide to
prosecute, they will probably
charge a violation of either or
both of the following Ann Arbor
ordinances:
"Scattering Bills. No person shall
scatter, place or throw any bills,
leaflets, pamphlets or other adver-
tising matter on the surface of
any public streets, alleys, or on
the public grounds of the City .. .
nor cause the same to be done by
another.
"Littering of Streets. No person
shall place, deposit, throw, scat-
ter or leave in any street, alley or
public place . . . any refuse, waste,
garbage, dead animals, wash
water or other noxious or un-
sightly material."
A DECISION to prosecute un-
der either ordinance stands on
extremely shaky legal grounds.
At the outset there is the problem
of whether the ordinances have
been violated at all. Apparently,
the arrested persons were handing
the leaflets, one at a time, to pass-
ers-by and some of the recipients
threw the handouts on the side-
walk after reading them. It is
difficult to see how those who
distributed the leaflets littered the
street. Perhaps by a stretch of the
imagination they caused others
to do so.
Assuming that the language of
the ordinances encompasses the
acts in question, the ordinances
themselves are very likely uncon-
stitutional as applied to these
persons. The First Amendment to
the Federal Constitution provides:
"Congress shall make no law .. .
abridging the freedom of speech
or of the press .
Judicial interpretation has in-
cluded this right among those
protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment "due process of law"
clause which acts as a limitation
upon state and municipal govern-
ments.
a *
ATTEMPTS have been made
under municipal ordinances to
prohibit or regulate the distribu-
tion of political leaflets. In no
case has the precise language of
the Ann Arbor ordinances been
tested.
But the existing decisions indi-
cate that the United States Su-
preme Court regards pamphlets as
an integral part of our political
process and has carefully shielded
them from the encroachment of
police power regulation.
Only last month in invalidating
a Los Angeles ordinance prohibit-
ing the dissemination of anony-
mous pamphlets, the Court re-
Nonrunning?
THE PARTISANS of noncandi-
dates Adlai Stevenson and
Chester Bowles appear nonamen-
able to disuasion.
On the same day, Earl Mazo in
the New York Herald-Tribune and
the Associated Press reported, in
almost identical language, that
delegates to the California Demo-
cratic Council Convention in Fres-
no last month gave heaviest ap-
plause to the nonpresent Steven-
son and Bowles the first of whom

affirmed its earlier statements that
leaflets, pamphlets and handbills
have played a valuable role in
circulating political ideas.
In 1938 the Supreme Court held
unconstitutional 'a city ordinance
which forbade any distribution of
circulars, handbills, advertising, or
literature of any kind within the
city .limits without permission of
the city manager. The Court said:
"The liberty of the press is not
confined to newspapers and peri-
odicals. It necessarily embraces
pamphlets and leaflets. These in-
deed have been historic weapons
in the defense of liberty, as the
pamphlets of Thomas Paine and
others in our own history abund-
antly attest."
* * *
A YEAR LATER the Court made
it clear that the purpose of keep-
ing the streets and sidewalks clean
is not a valid excuse for cutting
into the freedom to hand litera-
ture to one willing to receive it.
The Court had before it a defend-
ant convicted under an ordinance
prohibiting the distribution of cir-
culars. The ordinance was passed
to prevent messy sidewalks.
In unequivocal language-langu-
age which is quite relevant to the
Ann Arbor arrests-the Supreme
Court said: "Any burden imposed
upon the city authorities in clean-
ing and caring for streets as an
indirect consequence of such dis-
tribution results from the consti-
tutional protection of the freedom
of speech and press. The consti-

tutional protection does not de-
prive a city of all power to prevent
street littering. There are obvious
methods of preventing littering.
Amongst these is the punishment
of those who actually throw papers
on the streets."
IF IN THE local case the ar-
rested persons are prosecuted for
handing political pamphlets to
willing recipients on a public side-
walk, it seems that such prose-
cutions are repugnant to the
First Amendment and that the
ordinances are unconstitutional as
applied to these persons.
The issues 'in this case go
farther than the propriety of
picketing stores and passing out
explanatory leaflets. Whether or
not a person agrees that such
methods are a proper way to at-
tain the objective of non-dis-
crimination - indeed, even if a
person lacks complete sympathy
with that objective - he should
be sensitive to the threatened in-
vasion of a right which lies at the
very foundation of our constitu-
tional system: the unhampered
dissemination of political ideas.
Should the police decide not to
prosecute the arrested persons,
the arrests will look like little
more than harrassment.
The picketing and associated
activities have continued for sev-
eral weeks and there was ample
time for the police to make up
their minds without taking the
demonstrators into custody.

work of the complete composition.
after a single hearing, and the
reviewer is left to make comments
based on first impressions.
Gerald Humel's Prelude and
Scherzo for Solo Flute was, for
this reviewer, a highlight of the
evening's concert. The work, bril-
liantly performed by Patricia Mar-
tin, exploited the many possible
sounds of the flute, which, ac-
cord to the composer, has not been
done in much of the literature for
the flute.
* * *
ANOTHER work which seemed
to demonstrate a musical imagina-
tion was Donald Scavarda's
Groups for Piano performed by
Robert Ashley. The composer's
stated intention in this work was
to present a complete thought of
harmonic, rhythmic, and motive
ideas without development or ex-
pansion. The very short work quite
successfully fulfilled the com-
poser's objective.
Michael Cunningham's Adagio
and Capriccio for String Quartet
was performed by Lloyd Black-
man, violin, Virginia Stumm, sec-
cond violin, Elizabeth Lichty,
viola and Marjorie Ramsey, cello.
There was much textural interest
in the first part.
OTHER STRING works per-
formedwere Mary Luther's String
Quartet -- first movement -- and
part one of a String Trio by
George Cacioppo. The interest in
the Luther quartet seemed to cen-
ter around the full texture and
the quality of the sounds. The
Cacioppo trio had a very open
sound and the spacing of notes
gaverthe work much of its char-
acter. Some of the effect was lost
because of a misunderstanding in
tempo on the part of the perform-
ers.
The first movement of a Piano
Sonata by Ronald Leu was per-
formed by Gregory Kosteck. The
work had a wide range of sounds
and impressions. It seemed quite
appropriately commented that the
work built up to many exciting
climaxes and was very idiomatic
for the instrument.
A THIRD piano work on the
program was a group of three
pieces by Robert James. The
pieces, Fantasy, Nocturne and
Tocatta were performed by the
composer. The pieces had a full
sound and one comment made
was that the third movement was
perhaps too long in relation to
the number of ideas in the piece.
The other work on the program
was Maurice White's Elegy for
Clarinet Alone, performed by John
Mohler. It is a very short work
intended to suggest a single idea
which could possibly be the frame-
work of a larger work.
-Charlotte Davis

DAILY.
OFFICIAL,
BULLETIN

It is also difficult to judge works

(Continued from Page 2)
The following persons have been se-
lected as ushers for the May Festival
and must pick up their usher tickets at
the Box Office at Hill Auditorium on
Tuesday, April, 19th, and Wednesday,
April 20th, from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Marian Anne, Howard Abrams, Anabel
Anderson-Imbert, Thomas Albert, Peter
Azerod, Robert Amster, Peter Arnold,
Elizabeth Beddoes, Barbara Brodkey,
Annaliese Brookman, Dorothy Burnes,
Lawrence Brotman, Virginia Bush, Cyn-
thia Britton, Peggy Ann Bowman, Alice
Brubacker, Nancy Barnett, Beverly Ber-
ney, Helen Bruton, Susan Bergholz,
Carol Bamberger, Margery Borssuk, Al-
len Blaurock, Paul Blizman, Dinah Ber-
land, Robert Crowder, Pat Cartwright,
Susi Cooper, Robert Cramer, Ann Cop-
ley, Beverly Collora, Helen Cywinski,
William Crooks, Nathan Cohen, Lewis
A. Coburn, Robert Ceechini, Ed Cohen,
Edith Cook, Florence Duesing, Lee Anne
Dieken, Geraldine Du Bree, Erma Don-
ner, Don Derezinski, Shirley Davis, Judy
England, Eleanore Eitel, Judith Ebner,.
Jim Edmunds, Richard Evart, Carol H.
Foster, Mike Factor, Jerry Fuerst, Jo-
anne Gobal, Rose Greenfeld, Audrey
Grigsby, Beverley Garber, Carolyn Grow,
Harvey Gendler, Jeannette Garcia, San-
dra Gelder, Cyra Greene, Dan Glancy,
John Hornberger, Parker Hallberg, Bar-
bara Hess, Nannette Horton, Faith Hol1-
trop, Ron Hoffman, Cynthia Hall.Vera
Hurchik, M. Ethel Heffernan, Charles
Hefferna-n, M. Agnes Haynes, Robert
Henshaw, Susan Henderson, Harold
Heatwole, Robert Hackett, Norman Hai-
pern, Edythe Josephs, Joanne Jonas,
Jean Jahnke, Ann Harie Klis, Barbara
Kimball, Simon Katzenellenbogen, Anne
Kynast, Norma Kerlin, Erna Kochen-
dorfer. Kermit Kreuger, Young H. Kim,
John Kripl, Harold Lubin, Sigrid Link,
Sheldon Larky, Judith Lauffer, Charles
Lindquist, Sue McGough, Helga Mathiss,
Shirley Meista, Nancy Ellen McDonald,
Lee Ann Marshall, Paul A. Moore, Shir-
ley Moore, Janice Meyer, Gary Mell-
vaine, Phillip Nyhuis, Jeanne ,Nagel,
Brenda Novak, Nancy Nagelkirk, Dan
Orthner, Ann O'Neal, Sandra Orlovsky,
Janice Peck, Bonnie Posner, Gail Park-
er, Patricia Phillips, Susan Prakken,
Diane Pfabe, Jean J. Pelcman, Jim
Parkinson, Tony Pojos, Ruth Richards,
Marcia Roeber, Bonnie Roeber, Martha
Rearick, Viva Rimbaud, Jan Rahm,
Mary A. Richards, Robert Ramsey Jr.,
Claire Semmerling, Carole Stelde, Pa-
tricia Smith, Laura Sarko, Ken Shu-
back, Martha Shoemaker, Miriam Sing-
er, Jean Seinsheimer, Marian Shaw,
Marylou Seldon, Sandra Shapiro, Brun-
hilde Schuster, Dan Slobin, Mary Ann
Siderits, Barbara Shade, Charles B.
Stallman, Jerome E. Sikorski, Lawrence
Shaw, Fred Sansone, Ann Sansone, Sid
Stein, Bobbie Sim, Barbara Tuczak, Vir-
ginia Thompson. Nelita True, Nancy
Thomas, Betty Toyzan, Henrietta Ten
Harmsel, Laurel Tuby, Rosamond Von
Voightlander, Virginia Von Schon, Irene
Villemuere, Martha Vernon, Barbara
Wolf. Virginia Ann Witheridge, Marian
Ward, Charleen Wilson, Priscilla Wool-
ams, Stanley Woolams, Sharon -Wood,
Jack Wyman. David Walters, Ruth Wey-
man, Rita Zinkevics, Grace Zetterstrom,
Joan Zandstra, Eli Zaretsky, Maurice
Zilber.
International Student and Family Ex-
change. Have moved to new quarters at
(Continued on Page 5)

I

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Defends SGC Delay on Picketing,

To the Editor:
WHILE I SPENT four hours
picketing the Cousins Shop,
David Cook wrote an editorial con-
demning my failure to support
"any positive action" on the dis-
crimination issue.
I think, therefore, that a state-
ment concerning my views on
picketing is in order.
As indicated, I support picket-
ing of the Cousins Shop. Further,
I have asked SGC to endorse the
picketing of chain stores if their
national offices do not join in en-
dorsing a policy of non-discrimi-
nation.
It was this last mentioned pro-
posal that was communicated by
letter to the national officers of
the chain stores in question.
These letters, Mr. Cook said,
"would not seem to be a very
realistic means of promoting a
change in national chain store
policies." I agree. But this is not
why these letters were sent.
I BELIEVE that these letters
were mailed because the Council
desires to obtain verified evidence
as to whether these chains can
be held responsible for the dis-
criminatory practices observed in
their Southern outlets.
Now, taken individually these
chains might be considered power-
less to change such policies. How-
ever, acting jointly, they have the
power to effect such a change.
Hence, I think the Council's let-
ter was sent to publicly establish
that these chains are aware of
their obligation to take such joint
action.
I realize that the odds are pretty
high that these chains have al-
ready considered such joint ac-
tion. But speculation and hearsay,

dence is different from what the
Council can. However, when these
picketers request SGC's support,
they cannot impose their stand-
ards of proper evidence upon the
Council.
Two weeks, Mr. Cook, is not too
long to wait to preserve due pro-
cess of law. After all, there might
be another Chandler Davis case
for the University to consider.
--Roger Seasonwein, '61
'Trouble Makers'...
To the Editor:
AN OPEN question to picketers
and other "trouble makers" on
campus: Is it part of your method-
ology to openly ignore laws which
would hinder your activities? In
The Daily (Sunday, April 17)
where you were told last week
that you were breaking a law I
read that you continued to hand'
out your propaganda anyway.
Either you already knew you were
breaking a law and did not care
or you did not know and did not
bother to check on the matter
when you were told that you were
breaking a law, or possibly you
realized that you were breaking
a law but felt justified. Not desir-
ing to be like so many people
around here, I will not jump to
conclusions but will ask you -~
which one of the three was it?
As I continually read of your
activities, several things appear to
be obvious: You seem to trample
on and stretch the Constitution
and laws except where they fit
some need and then you don't
hesitate to call these things to
your defense. . . . Personally I see
you as a radical group, unin-
formed, inconsistent in your be-

gration emanate from our minds
which all seem to be perverted
just depending upon which side
we take, let us attempt to analyze
the problem from an objective
view.
Some time ago the Supreme
Court of the United States of
America (not of the North, or of
the South, or of the East, or of
the West) decided that segrega-
tion was unlawful. This is the law.
And as it is the law it will only
function if the persons to whom
it applies believe in the moral
values behind it (i.e., All persons
have certain rights as human be-
ings and it is the duty of the
government of the United States
of America to see that these people
are assured these rights).
Your letter said that prior to
the decision of the Supreme Court
there was some integration in the
South, and that after the decision
the South felt that it was being
persecuted and so decided not to
integrate any more. Is not this
rather childish; it would seem to
imply that the South really did
not believe in integration ever and
was only doing it to look good. If
the South was integrating before
the decision of the Supreme Court,
then its decision was only the
formalizing of the people's beliefs;
and if that is true, why should the
South resist when today less than
six per cent of the "deep South"
is integrated in the Schools? That
means that only 6 out of every 100
Negroes in the South have basic
human rights, and then only in
the schools.
THE NORTH is not chaste, but
it is not that bad. And in the

It has been shown that through
cooperation men can learn to get
along together and forget all dif-
ferences; the Supreme Court did
not idyllically foresee the country
free of segregation by 1960, but
it did see that our religions have
failed to instill in us the concep-
tion of human equality and so it
set out to achieve this in another
way-forced cooperation. A survey
of the history of our country
would show how this has been
necessary before, and that it has
worked; furthermore, a history of
any nation of any time would
show that equality of the peoples
was something which the state,
if anyone, has to do-people do
not like to change the status quo.
* * *
LET US get back to your sub-
jective letter. You implied at one
place that only Negroes receive
welfare in the South-how naive.
I think that if you were interested
you would be able to learn that
just as many of the sacred whites
receive welfare as do the Negroes.
I do not believe that these whites
would like to see their welfare
stopped.
Approximately one hundred
years ago a man was elected
President of the United States
of America with the name Abra-
ham Lincoln. And whether you
agree with this fact or not, you
will have to admit that he put
down an insurrection which
threatened this country's exis-
tence. We are told that ifhe had
not been assassinated by some
Southern sympathizers he would
have implemented a very mild
program for the reconstruction of
the Southern treasoners.
Unfortunately he did not live to