Part: 1234         Session: 123         Page 120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151 of 512

any more than I had written the others, but I had a very, very close supervision and connection with it.

I should add one little aspect of this that I only touched on before. That is, when the publisher sees phrases or words that he doesn't like in an editorial, a problem can arise. One day when I was away a few weeks ago, he insisted on a certain phrase being taken out of an editorial that was a descriptive phrase in respect to General de Gaulle. When I came back and heard about this, I was very annoyed and upset that he would have done this, because here was a case where a phrase was concerned that I did not feel was up to the publisher to try to edit, and we had a big argument over this. Again, you don't write down any laws on this matter, but I really do think-at least I hope so-that he was convinced that this kind of interference is a mistake. I don't mind a bit if he calls up and suggests a certain phrase that he thinks is unfortunate or wrong or something. I'm very glad to have any kind of advice of this sort in an editorial. I certainly don't think that every piece as it is finally prepared for publication is the last word. In fact, when I reread them all in the paper the next day, I always see how they could have been improved a great deal. This is generic with my kind of observation and working on and with the page.

So I have no objection to the publisher making suggestions. But I did object very strongly to his actually forcing out a certain descriptive phrase in an editorial where the editorial writer and the acting editor both thought the phrase should have stayed in. Well, that's a dead issue now, but I didn't think this was the function of a publisher-to insist on something of this sort coming out when it wasn't really a major policy matter. I'll admit if this phrase involved a big matter of policy, I would have seen much more justification. But