Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 4 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
Once again there was a recitation of Dr. King’s alleged connection with Communist organizations.
There were the tales of government conspiracies to conceal the “truth” about his rumored public and private improprieties. And of course, there was the obligatory revelation of his “real purpose,” which was, it was charged, the ultimate extinction of the white race through “mongrelization.”
Others noted, more rationally, that there are many prominent Virginians who have not been honored with state holidays, among them are many blacks.
But through all the testimony the recurring racist theme rose and fell with varying degrees of intensity.
Matched against this was the reasoned persuasion of Sen. L. Douglas Wilder of Richmond, chief patron of the bill, Del. Roland Ealey of Richmond, who knew Dr. King personally, black attorney David Temple of Fairfax and others.
They spoke of the advances won by blacks because of Dr. King’s leadership, of the goal of brotherhood between the members of the races which he had pursued, and of his strength in the face of the dangers which dogged his footsteps and which killed him in the end.
Still the committee voted to reject the bill.
It was as if nothing which had been said had been heard. Indeed, it is doubtful that the testimony changed a single vote either way.
The members of the committee voted their consciences, or their political best interests, and that was that.
The Martin Luther King holiday was not, of course, the real subject of that hearing, nor was Dr. King, the man, the real reason for all the passions aroused by the holiday proposal.
93.2%