Part: 1234         Session: 1234         Page 262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307 of 512

number of quite interesting memos from various members of the editorial board, dated as early as May, 1966, responding to that request. And of course I used some of these ideas in the subsequent development, in the committee discussions that we subsequently held. The discussions - well, in '67, we kept on with the discussions, but nothing happened at all. There was no decision made.

What was the reason for the stalemate?

I think basically, probably, it was the opposition of the new department, which Daniel had clearly expressed. He, remember, said in one of those meetings that although he saw some advantages, saw some merit to an Op-Ed page, he could not be included, his words were “could not be included in the consensus in favor of an Op-Ed page.”

How long was he -?

He was managing editor, and I can only assume that it was that basic opposition that got to the publisher and convinced the publisher that we just couldn't go ahead with this, because of new department opposition. I think that the opposition was partially - well, Daniel gave some of the reasons in one of these memos, but I can easily check that.

You've already expressed it briefly.

Yes, but I don't think I gave his reasons. The reasons were, I think, that they didn't want to give up the space. They were afraid that this would compete with the news