-NEW FORK, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1962 , VOLUlCrlE 195, N o . 11

'Who Is Their God?9 BY MARTIN LUTIIER KING, JR.

At lanta , Go. The Mlssissiypi crmls has seared the, conscience of

our entire nqtlon. It has beep di[frcult to belleve v h a t .we have re3d 111 the newspapers and more djfflcult to bolleve y h a t our teleywon sets have hurled at our eyes. Is tlus Amerlca? Is thls redly happenmg ill 1962 when ypq,conslder thqt the ent ly of one James Meredith 1nto Ole MISS is the lqplementatipn of a Supreme Court de-

~cls~un t l la t aqtedates by ne;lr\y a decqde the Brown O.

B4al.d o j Edl~cafzolz case r ~ s ~ l t u ~ g III the 1954 decree outlaming segregatlon In t h e p u b l , ~ schools? It leaves one a little dazed a a d numb.

Conslder the stark tragedy of Mlsslssippi: Governor B m , wth lnterposltlon dr1ppmg from 111s I~ps , ._

" - svnally goadlng the raclst clement of the state and the,

no such debacle materallzed. 'Certalnly there are nearly as inany segregatlonlsts 111 GeorgIa as t(here are rn MISSIS- sipp', maybe more, but there was 110 near-rebellllon such as n7e have seen ~n recent days at Oxford. Why? Be- cause of the fallure of the academlc, polltlcal and re- llgious l'eadershlp of the- State of Mlsslsslppl.

IT IS A sad fact t311at the sound and fury vented its spleeli a t Oxford-site, of ttlle Unlverslty of MIsslsslppi. The young people whp attend classes 111 The Lyceum and who walk the shaded paths of Ole MISS are the arlstocracy of M~ss lss~ppl The Board 01 -Trustees are hardly backwoods cotton farmers. In the aura of tha t which could be adj'udged the hgl1est and best of Missis- slppl, law and order ,broke down completefly. If this is the best of M ~ s s ~ s s ~ p p ~ , God save LIS from &e worst. There can be no gamsaymg that the academlc and edu- catlogal lcadershp of Misslsslppl faded her when she needed I t ,most.

latlng thetr sacred trust to preselve academic freedom; the cancatwe-lllce move of the Governor appointmg hlmsejf registrar t o block the Au Force veteran's en- rollment; t,he use of state pollce power to thwart t,he enfo~cement of federal law, almost temptlng clvd war; the loss of tyc, IIVOS, the scores ~njured and the yet uncalc-uiated pam and agony the people of Mlssmsippl and +IS natlon IvLlst bear It is Indeed stark tragedy, for I t bqs all1 really happened here 111 the United States ~p 196).

What has happened 111 M~ss~ss ippi surely dld not have to happen, for there were other hard-core, arch- segregatlopqt states tllat faced the ,Inevitable course of justye. Geol-gla IS an example. Has it not been one of the baspons of segregation? Tlhe ~rnrnlnel~t ~ntegrat lon of the publlc sch,ools In Atlapta last year was heralded by s o q e ~ourrra&sts as the "second battle of Atlanta"',

3

has seen smce the C I V ~ W a r was that she suffered the complete ab,dlcation of responsrbillty by her polltlsal leadershlp. In contradlstmctIon to Georgia, CMississlppl, with Governor Barnett as the standard b'earer, began a traglc march down a dead-end street despite fore- warnmg that ultimately, no matter what, the federal flat had t o be obeyed-S,tates' nghts , in terpos~t~on and nulllfuxtmn ~ ~ o ~ w ~ t I ~ s t a n d ~ n g . The Governor was alded and abetted in hls chicanery [by the Legislature of MIS- slssippl and the power structure of the state. Not a s,lngle cry of cqutlon or moderation resaunded from the ~valls of any governing body, from the state Capitol t o rhe smallest county seat. Tlhe verse and &orus tha t echoed around t h e s ta te was dwzys the same: Never!

How dif'ferent might the plcture be 411 M~ssisslppi today If only the polltical leadershlp of the state had had the courage to face the problem Instead of throwmg up their hands and dellvenng harangues against federg istgrventlon, They vhom the peopIe had elected , to be

the guardians of the commonwealth abdicated their re- sponsibility in Mississippi’s most critical hour since secession, and allowed the campus of Ole MISS to become a battlefidd for a cause that was ,lost a hundred years ago.

And where was the #cry of +he Lord’s prophets? The ‘most serious indictment is not t o be made against a screammg ,mob propelled by bottled-up venom and hatred that was having its ultimate, tragic catharsis. Surely tnhe abysmal silence of the church land thle clergy cannot pass without Its due reckoning. The New Testa- ment admonishes us that the people cannot hear if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound. W.hat is their hope if the trumpet makes no sound a t all? I have traveled much of the length and breadth of Mississippi. On Iazy summer afternooos and cold mornings, I’ve seen tall1 church spires and sprawlmg brlclc monuments dedicated to ohe glory of ,God. ‘Often did I won’der, “What kind of people worshlp there? Who is their God?” When I review tlhe painful memory of the last week a t Oxford and cannot recall a single voice “crying in the wdder- ness,” the questions are still the same: “What kind of people worship there? Who IS their God?”

MORE than anyth~ng else, it is regrettable that United States marshals, a federalized National Guard and troops of che United States Army were the only means hy which the admission ‘of James Meredith counld be secured. As a ,devotee of the nonviolent disclpline, I am also a pacifist. Though I regret the use of force in t,he Mississippi situation, nevert,heless, In my humble judg- ment, i t was necessary and justlflable. Wlhereas I abhol the use ,of arms and the though,t of war, I do believe in th’e intelligent use of 8poEice Tower. Though a pacifist, I am not an anarchist. Mississippi’s breakdown of law and order demanded the utilizatton of a police action t o quell the disorder and enforce lthe law of the land. Armed force that intelligently exercises police power, making civil arrests in which full due process 1s observed, is not ,functioning as an army in ,military engagement, so I feel the presence of troops in Oxford, Mississippi, is a police force seeking to preserve 1a.w and order, rather than an apmy engaging in destructive warfare.

It must be acknowledged (that ehe entire nation must bear some of the blame for the Mississippi tragedy. We can never deny that compromises madte following the Civd War and during Reconstructlon have at last come home to roost, The whole system of segregation and discrimination for t,he last hundred years ;has had eibher the consent of llaw and/or custom, both North and South. Thus, race and, more ,especialmly, ‘color prejudice has been woven into the falbric of American life by our own hands. T o Ibe’sure, its greatest intensity has been felt in the South, where the scars ,of the slave system temained more msible and law and custom became one, buttressed by the inherent sectlonalism of Itthe Con-

2 10

Jederacy. America, to her dishonor, learned to live with the system In I ~ S glaring and blatant sfol7ms in (the South and Its cunning and subtle forms in the North. Only ,now, 11i the last few years, has our Republic really begun to come to grips with race and color prejudice. So the natlon 1s not without blame.

This sordid American tragedy has demonstrated once again the need for vigorous and firm exercise of th6 powers of the Presldency in seeking to engender a cli- mate of understanding and respect for the civil and constitutional rights #of Negroes. The executive heads of our nation must not Walt for some great crisis t o emerge before asserting foruhright action, ‘but must make i t palpably clear on a day-to-day basis rhat Eheir power, thew moral Ieadershlp and authority, are committed to the task of removing the ugly weight crf racial dis- crimlnatlon from the shoulders of the nation. It may yell be that t,he many seeds sown by llong periods of Executiye inaction in the advancement of civil rights in America have reached the ugly harvest of lawless- ness and violence we now see in IMississippi.

What are we to say to nhe world? Oxford, Mississippi, has placed democracy on trial. As never before, the cry of the Negro for equaIjity and justice in our nation has been muflfled, at ,best. But the Little Rocks, the Mont- gomery~, the ,Albanys and the Oxfords place ,the ques- tioning of our world leadership on the lips ’ of t,he emerging African and Asian nations. Wle cannot stand

’before the judgment bar of world opinion so long as there erupts an Oxford, Mississippi. w h a t &e are doing speaks so loud they cannot hear what we say. [See also “Deluded and Still Defiant,” by Hodding Carter, 111, page 214.-Eu.]

Not Altogether Unhappy Either Asked to coynen t on the riotmg which marked his

admittance to the Uo~versity of Mi,ssissippi, James H. Mered~ th s ad i t was “no happy occasion.” Just the same, some compensatory factors are beginning 1 to emerge. $‘‘oremost i’s the demeanor of Meredit,h him- self. Braving assassination, disregarding Insults, he is demonstrating by personal example that white suprem- acy IS a myth, that neirher intelligence, nobility nor courage is the sole possession of any race.

In contrast, but also on the credit side, are the ex- posures which the events In Oxford are bringing albout. As battle reveals the true chaiacter of the solsdier, a civic crlsis s t r~ps the camouflage from politicians and journalists. ‘Governor Ross Barnett (he “wh’o would not drink of th’e cup of genocide”) ,squawked for law and order #when the situation came ‘to a boil and tried to escape his own responsi$billty for the bloodshed. Some of hrs racist predecessors - Tom Watson, for example - may have had some redeeming traits; if Barnett has any; he has #managed to conceal them from

The NATION

Y

all but his feltlow nlemdcrs of the White Citizens coun- CllS.

Senator~James 0. Eastland of M’lssissippl 1s far out on a cracklng lllmb. His racist phhpplcs have long been endured and as long as the cltlzens of iVIisscmpp1 choose to elect hlm, presumably he hlmself must be endufed as a member of the Senate, but )his colleagues must no'^ cons~der ‘whether, In all c,onsclence, he should be permitted to continue as chairman of the Judmary Committee. . F’orlner Army Maj. Gen. Ed’win A. Walker has fol some time -been in a state of v e h a l insurrection agalnst the Governmerit of t,he United States Commnunlsts have gone to the penltent.iary for less but, properly enough, Walker has been given the utmost latitude. It may be that 111 Mlssisslppl, and previously 111 Texas, he overstepped the line bettween free speech and acts of lnsurrectlon ’ If he 1s found sane, ,he w ~ l ,have his day 111 court. In the meantlme, 111s right-wlng dema- goguery will not ,be mlssed.

The events - in Oxford may signal the end of the States’-ngbts doctrlne as a cover for criminal m1s- treatment of Amerlcans whose slcms happen to be

,darker than those of o h r Ammericans. For years it has been perfectly clear that the proponents of States, rights were not Jtalking about rights at all. What they were talblng about was the right of the unrecon- s,tructed states to perpetuate civlc wrongs i’n defrance of the Constitutlon. As &e fmt Justice John M. Harlan once sdld, the purpose of t h e c i v d War amendmments was t80 estalbllsh a condltlon of L ‘ ~ n ~ ~ e r ~ a l ,,civic free- dom.” A step ,In that dlrection has been taken.

Not least among the hlghllghts in the Mlsslssippi picture IS the revulsion of the sober citizens of the state .to t h e de,bacle Into ;which Barnett and h1s type of poltrman led them. They have been, cravenly silent too long, ,but the presence of federal troops has ap- parenily heartened them. Quoting a Jackson executive, Neil A. Maxwell reports 111 T h e Wall St?-eet J o w n a l “Everyone is shocked and slck ,over the ,rioting in Oxford.” At least some Mlssisslppi :busmessmen, Max- well says, “believe mcendlary statements by Gov- ernor Barnett made the violence inevitable." Two hundred of the most promulent citizens of Mlssisslppi held a meetmg in Jxckson to d u c h n o t one polltlcal official was invited. Segregatlonists at heart stlll, they have comlmltted themselves to %vorlr publicly for law and order and, m efhect, for an end to defiance of the Federal courts. . . .” Apparently they have had a bedly- ful of Barnettism; it ~ o o k the events at Oxford to slhow them what lawlessness in high places can lead t’o.

Good Advice for TV Under the title, “A Funny Th~ng Happened on the

Way to the F8o1-um,” T h e Haward C?-imson ((September

October 13, 1962

.24) prints a first-rate cditorial on an important aspect of the Senatorla1 campa~gn In Massachusetts. It points out that there are “three malor candldates, among them H. StuaL-t Hughes, the first non-party candidate ever t o collect the necessary 72,514 signatures to place his name on the ballot.” (George Cabot Lodge, it seems, is not averse to debating with Hughes, but both Ted Kennedy and the TV Interests would rabher bmsh off the interloper. The, C l r m ~ o n comments: “Ted Ken- nedy’s reluctance to appear on the same platform wlth Stuart Kughes hardly affects the responsibillty of the television Industry to present the Views of major can- ddates to the people of Massachusetts. ICennedy does not control the television industry 111 Massachusetts, and whether or not he chooses to appear . . . the views of hls opponents deserve the fullest posslble exposure t o the Commonwealth.”

The reasoning could ‘hardly h e inore cogent. The baslc troulbtlc is that the T V industry’s primary in- terest IS III selllng advertising. Whatever else I t puts on the air IS expected t o serve one of t w o purposes 01,

Ideally, both: I t ‘must make lt seem rhat the industry IS virtuously performing a pubhc servi’cc, and hence is entitled to :he 'precious channels whch i t occupies; or,. by furnishing entertainment, the program wdl beguile rlle viewers and make the advertising effective. n

And, of course, a serious polmcal dlscusslon might ,drive the mpre 11ght-mmded to tmhe usual fare of female glam- our and masculine gun fights.

Hence the M e e t t he Press format, in which the prin- cipal is successively handcuffed by a ‘number of jour- nallsts A d is expected to put on a series of Houdini- escape’s, with a vmmute or two allowed in each case. Even in the Nlxon-John I?. Kennedy de.bates, where sthe pace was slower, I t was not so much what the can- didates s a d as the way they looked tha t inflluenced the viewers. That was not tmhe fault of the networks, bu t i t probalbly confipmed them in rhe opinion that the more pap they put 011 the air, the happier tihe audience will be. But smce Stuart Hughes ‘happens to have somethmg of tlhe utmost importance to say, and he says it well, neither the preconception of the TV execntlves nor the wariness of Ted Kennedy should be perm~t ted to keep him of,f the an-.

Juggernaut I n his farewell address of January 17, 1961, Dwight

D’. Eisenhower Issued as timely and portentous a warn- mg as any American Presdent before hlm. “We must,” h e said, ‘‘guard against the acquisltlon of unwairanted influence, whether sought or unsought, by thls m~lltary- industr~al complex. This conjunction of an immense mllltary establlshment with a large arms Industry is new in Amerlcan experience. I t s total influence - ‘econorn~c~ polittical, even sp~ri tual - is ‘,felt in every

‘214

city, every statehouse, every office of federal govern- ment.” The phrase, “military-industrial complex,” caught on. The whole speech has the ring of authentic prophecy. It keeps cropping up in ABmerican journdism, and with good reason, for the problem which had ,Gen- eral Eisenhower worried has grown worse, not better.

J 1 m G. Lucas of the Scrlpps-Howard newspapers went to Gettysrburg t o find out how General Eisen- hower feels about the militaryindustrial complex after almost two years of retirement. The report, which ap- peared in the New York World-Telegram and Suqt of October 2, is in indirect quotes, lbut wibh a reporter as experienced as Lucas we may be sure that i t ac- curately reflects the General’s present views, There is such a complex, ‘he relterates, and he believes it threat- ens “the very fa’bric ,of our 11ves.” Witjhout quite real- izing it, “we are being recast ,in new molds, turning out a generation of Americans with totally ddferent morals, amlbitions and ways of doing things. This frightens him [ El~enhower],~’ writes Lucas.

The worst of lit is that the members of the complex are not overt’ly wil or covertly dishonest; they are just taking advantage .of the opportunities the arms race offers them. They consider themselves “patriotic” - the word is in ,quotation marks in Lucas’ text - and they are completely self-righteous about i t all, making

’ the situation the more dangerous. Eisenhower, using part of the title of the special Oct. 28, 1961, issue of The Natioa (“Juggernaut: the Warfare !State”) writ- ten by Fred Cook, descri’bes the military-indwtrial complex as a “juggernaut, rolling ,on with no road- blocks a~head.” He has no confidence that businessmen wifll exercise self-control in the natlonal interest. Gov- ernment .has ohecks and balances, .but business knows only profits apd ~losses, and $SO ‘billion a year is a bo- nanza. Eisenhower belleves the arms budget is ,too high and that it can be reduced without impairing security.*

The complex can become [more poweFful than the Presidency. Lzbor, a large segment cof Ibusiness, the scientific and engineering colmmunities, t,he universities, the “think factories” are all generously subsidized. Eisenhower has no more confidence in politicians than in !businessmen to turn the tide. What <Congressman, he asks, wlll vote agalnst more defense spending when his bread and butter are involved?

Neat ly synchronized wiuh this observation is a Penta- gon report released !last’ week. It predicts a continuing rise in spending in ‘‘every (major category o f military ,hard goods and more generous dlwances to those areas which bave ‘been squealing for more favored treat- ment.” “The ,pol~ticall i,mpact of the report,” writes John G. Norris in the New York Herald Tr ibme, “mxde public as election campaigning waxed hot, could be considerable.” President Kennedy borrowed from i t in advance of publication to assure West Virginia voters that the total value of defense orders placed in their

212

I

impoverished state has almost quadrupled since he took ofiflce. The j’uggernaut rolls on, and if the past President is concerned, the present inculmbent seems to be quite pleased wiuh its progress.

Labor in the Warfare State Belatedly, the American labor !movement is begin--

ning to share Eisenhower’s mew of the military-industrial complex. Guns and butter will 1ulJ h b o r as long as there is plenty of butter. But dhen matters reach a point where the most outrageous raids on the Treasury are put over in the name of defense and security, and labor gets a progressiyely decreasing share o f the swag, some labor leaders and ana’lysts .wrll begin to speak up. I!I Liberation (Ju,ly-August, 1962), Snmner N. Rosen warns that “a total oommitment to struggle, based on an ove&helming miIitary strengbh and involving every aspect of our national Pife . . . will result in the steady decline of freedom in this society. ‘And with tha t de- cline ahead, the labor movement must decide whecher to go along for the sake of eating of,f the gravy train, or to oppose at the risk of entering ‘once more into the wilderness of opposition.”

The same note was sounded by Wildiam H. Ryan of t h e International Ma’chinists union. Testifying before a House subcommittee, Ryan said: “We have often wondered if at the very b,ottom of the vicimous influence working against peace is the profit motive #of private ~

munitions an,d armament mal1lufactupers.” Anmother exhlbit is in bhe fall, 1962, issue of the I.U.D.

Digest, ,the organ of the Industrial Union Departfment of the AFLCIO. In an editorial arti’cle, the Digert ‘points out that the oold war bolsters tmhe economy but exacts its price. “It is affecting the quality of our so- ciety,” the editors go on to say, “changing power re- lationships within It, creating new elites and dtering economic thinking. Because of it, business and gov- ernment have clashed on some l’evels. But on other levels, especially in dlrect defense procurement, t.he tw’o have virtually merged.” And for hbor, and the great mass of Americans, tthe alliance bodes no good.

These are ‘only faint \+hispers of prot’est ‘in a l’oud, warlike cacophony, but unti.1 now nmot even whispers have been :heard from organized ‘Jabor, Tihose whjo have the interests of the A,merkan people at heart must speak louder,

The Sound and the Fury Capt. Ed,die Rickenba’cker stood on the steps of the.

old Su’b-Treasury building on Wall Street while the headquarters (band of the US. First Army played patriotic airs. Then, when a crowd gabhered, be called for ‘‘defenslve aggression” to ’deal with the Cuban “crisis.” Gray-suited young bankers, secretaries teeter-

The NATION

ing ‘on stiletto heels, the mink-stoled ladies of the program committee and the nondescrlpt of Wall )Street applauded. A bugler played taps, a clergyman from St. Paul’s prayed, tshen all1 sang “,God Bless America" and returned to their :brokerage houses.

Well, it’s only old Eddie Rlckenbacker, one may say, and I t was in World War I that he shot down those twenty-six #German aircraft. The fact is, however, that the “Castro-must-go” sentiment in the United States is spreading and h~tiherto sellsible men are joining the chorus. In his ABC-TV commelltary, Howard K. Smith has been saying that “direct American action should be contemplated” toward Cuba. “For us,” he solemnly as- sured his public, “tmhis is like watchmg Hltler’s march into the Rhineland. He could easily have (been stopped then. But by not acting then ‘his opponents made a bloody World War inevitable.”

So speaks the one-time stalwart f’oe of fascism. He should -reread 111s own books and articles. The parallel between Hltler and Castro is grotesque. Hltler was a counterrevolutlonary; Castro is a revolutionary. Hltler was intend on Teutonizing Europe: he demanded and seized one piece of territory after another, each time assuring the Chamlberlains and Daladiers t.hat the latest grab was the last. Perhaps if tlhe Russlans had given him the Ukraine he would have been satiated, but thls piece of swag .he never obtained. LCastro b a s not asked tor Florida or Mississippi. Ne seems to want noth- ing but Cuba and, after all, he is a Culban. Another dif- ference which seems t o elude Mr. Smith is that Hitler commanded the ‘foremost military machine in the world, one nhat had been (defeated in the First world^ War only when American ‘manpower and industry were throvn onto the scales, and which frightened everyone but Win- ston ,Churchdl and FrallBlln D. R,oosevelt half to death. Castro has nothing ‘but defensive equipment and is de- pendent on the Soviet Union lor most of that. Defen- sively he is certainly in a strong position; olf,fens~vely he is a long-winded orator on a Cariblbean island with a population equal to that cof New Jersey.

We shodd have found out by now tllyat social revolu- tions thrive ,011 persecution, and that .%he counterrevolu- tionary crusading spirit of tAmerican stat,esmanship does not strike a resonant note except in countries which are themsellves ‘overripe for revolfutlon. ,C,astro is n o t going to cut ,oflf his head and present it t o us Ion a platter, and it will be a perilous enterprise to try to get it on our own. It would n’ot (be COO late t o deal with him sensibly, but there is llttie chance of that when ‘the Eddie Ricken- backers and the Howard K. Sminhs ,talk ,alike.

Half a Cloak A well-run se,cret service is supposed never to take

credit for Its successes or to adcmmlt its failures. The hand that holds the dagger must ever be cloaked; and October 13, I962

though this may raise some anxiety in a democracy, where the cltlzell is supposed .to know what 1s d’one in h ~ s name, one can see rhat, if tehe need for a secret service is admitted, the ‘need for secrecy is dbvious.

But the CIA, unlike its older European counter- parts, reallly wants to (be only half-secret. We are a boastful people, ‘we llke a good wlnner even more than a good l’oser, and I t can’t have been much #fun for Al- len Dulles to chomp silently on his pipe as, week after week, J. Edgar Hoover saved Miss Llberty fvom her would-)be ravishers. Mr. Dulles ,wanted US to know that he hadn’t been exactly idle in the St. Geol?ge business; he too yearned for a ‘fan dub.

Therefore, journallsts have often been surprised by the warm sm~le fillat greets them at CIA headquarters. Su,c,h a one was Sanche de OGramont, a newspaper man who, wlth the eager cooperation of the agency, wrote The Secmt W a f , pu:blished last April ,by Putnam’s. Everything went lovlngly between the writer and the sples until the flnlshed manuscrlpt ,was shown to the CIA. The agehcy drew up a forty-two-point bilml of objections, covenng items that were “ina~c’urate,’~ t r not in the best Interests of the coluntry” or serving 4 r an alien cause.” The publishers duly ,corrected all factu- al errors and removed ad1 statements chat were said to offend agalinst security. T,hey then proceeded to have the book printed. They descrlbe i t as a work which, though objective, is not unfriendly to the CIA.

Desplte thls cooperatlon and the over-all tone, the CIA began an immediate harassment. For example, on the day )before the book was published, the literary editor of the New York Her& Tribune was ordered by his superiors to kill reviews planned ,for the dally and Sunday papers. A news story was substituted, one that cited mtelhgence offrcers in M7ashington as saying that the bopk used “leftlst or even Communist-in- spired” sources, Thls d~s~ngenuqus charge referred to the fact that Mr. Gramont qulotes from a Soviet Pam- phlet on the CIA - and carehlly identlfles its source. The aluthor has been smeared )both here and abroad. The. Eveving Standard of London quotes as foll’ows from Washington: “The Central Intelligence Agency does not approve of the pu6lication ‘of @his book since such approval would !be contrary to uhe national secur- ity and welfare of &e United #States.’’ T o the un,wary ear, that sounds like talk of treason.

This is n o t an ,isolated case: The U-2 Affair by David Wlse and Thomas IB. Ross (Random Hcouse) and C.I.A.: The I m i d e S t o q by Andrew Td ly (Mor row) pl-ovoked &e. same anguished cries and veiled attac,ks from an initla,ltly cooperative secret service. In every other branch of life, private o r public, an

enterprise that courts publ~city risks criticisnl. The CEA alone operates on the assumption that praise is due them and critlcism un-Amencan. No self-respect- ing jjournalist wil.1 work under such ground rules,

213