Part: 1234         Session: 1234         Page 262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307 of 512

be most interesting and attractive, but he still questioned whether there should actually be an Op-Ed page, and went on to explain why.

But - so we had a big go-round that day.

This is relating to the October meeting.

This was all in October, '66. And it ended really quite inconclusively, I having to emphasize that I felt that the Op-Ed page would not compete with the daily news columns, which seemed to be a real concern on the part of Cliff Daniel, who, at one point during this meeting, did say very explicitly that he could not be included in a consensus on the Op-Ed page.

In fact, I am quoting that phrase from the minutes, what Cliff said then.

Then we had a third meeting in my office on December 15th, in which the Op-Ed page was pretty well, had really pretty well gotten down to a quite concrete form in concept, and the content was it was worked out and discussed at this meeting was that it would include the following four kinds of things: original articles of approximately 750 words each, contributed on request by a wide variety of writers, and we sent out at that time a number of letters asking for such articles, and I noted on this date which was December 15 that one article had already been received. I don't remember who that was, but it would be very easy to determine. And “will be run,” I said, “as a Topics or as a Monday editorial page article.”