Word: acted
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1940-1949
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...suitable for adoption, they are a valuable national asset and the whole Alberta policy is puzzling; if they are not suitable for placement, it is a dastardly thing to send them to foster homes in a friendly neighboring country." Her suggested remedy: recasting of Alberta's Child Welfare Act to reduce the "unjustifiable powers" of province officials...
...glasses and shielded his face with his hand. It made a good Page One picture, and for readers who wanted to draw a hasty moral, the inference was clear: he didn't want the Russians to know what he looked like. There was one thing wrong with the act. The Russians, who may or may not be after him, presumably already had passport photos of the man they themselves had sent to the U.S. as an official of the Soviet Purchasing Commission. Even if they hadn't, Kravchenko's picture had already appeared in the U.S. press...
...silk-hatted financiers of New Masses cartoons. But the Journal insists that its loyalty to big business is not blind. On his editorial page last week, Editor William Grimes, a 1947 Pulitzer Prizewinner, tartly told the sugar industry that there was a sour taste to the industry-sponsored Sugar Act of 1948 (see BUSINESS...
Exactly nine days after President Truman asked them to "wait and see" before raising their prices, steelmakers got tired of waiting. The American Rolling Mill Co. was the first to act; it boosted its prices as much as $7 a ton. Next day Republic Steel Corp., third largest U.S. producer, boosted its prices $5 to $8. The same day, National Steel Corp. raised prices an average of $5.25 a ton. The following day, Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. joined the move with raises of $6 to $7 a ton. The raises, on the whole, were much larger than anyone had expected...
Backed by a powerful domestic sugar-growers' lobby, the Sugar Act of 1948 was quietly ushered through Congress; until the final stages, it hardly drew a fly. But last week, just a few days before the House-approved bill was sent to the Senate,* an angry buzz was heard. Cried the Wall Street Journal: "A legal monopoly [for which] the consumer is to pay." Charged the New York Times: "A cartel! Written by the sugar industry for the sugar industry...