Part: 1234         Session: 123         Page 8990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119 of 512

The only instance we had of this in the history of the Times that I'm aware of was in connection with our Chattanooga paper. I might have discussed this earlier in a previous-

You touched on this general area-

But, at any rate, just to illustrate exactly what I mean, what happened in such a crisis, did happen in the case of one of the two Adlai Stevenson-Eisenhower campaigns, when the editor of the Chattanooga paper, which, of course, is owned by the Times, did not want to support Eisenhower, but the publisher, specifically, felt that the Chattanooga paper should have the same editorial position that the New York paper had, and the New York paper was supporting Eisenhower. He required that the Chattanooga paper also should support Eisenhower, and the editor did take a leave of absence. He came back to the page later on. That's a most unusual circumstance when you come down to it.

To get back to your original question on such a matter as what we're going to do in the New York primary. Now, this is _____ to a decision as to whom we're going to support in the presidential election. Of course, these things are never so simple, I guess, as they sound when you're talking about them. In the case of the New York primary, that decision-say that we're for Rockefeller-originated with me and my editorial staff. I discuss it with two of -to give you an actual case history, and remember this is far from expressing support of the presidential nominee, but as the New Hampshire primary approached, I felt that it would be interesting and worthwhile for the New York Times to express itself on this primary, in the context of the primary, as though we were a New Hampshire voter.