Letters, Feb. 23, 1948

Gandhi Story

Sir:

The world owes you a debt of gratitude for the wonderful paragraphs on Mahatma Gandhi in TIME, Feb. 9. I have rarely seen such inspired journalism.

FRED FIELD GOODSELL

Boston, Mass.

Point in History

Sir:

Churchill is right [TIME, Feb. 2]. The world is at a crucial point in the evolutionary process. We have here and now to resolve the question as to whether the world social organism shall advance toward closer integration along the lines of individual freedom and intelligent self-determination, which is democracy, or within a matrix of “scientific” and coercive direction by a political elite, which is world Communism.

What democracy needs is faith in herself—faith to combat fanaticism, and a dialectic realism to combat dialectic materialism. Historical and evolutionary trends, in the long view, are on the side of freedom and the brotherhood of man, as against regimentation and the comradery of the Politburo.

A. R. WOLCOTT

Chatham, Mich.

Thin Ice

Sir:

ON YOUR REMARKABLY PERCEIVING COVER PIECE ON BARBARA ANN [TIME, FEB. 2] . . . CONGRATULATIONS FROM HER COMPETITOR AND AN OLD TIME INC. FAN.

GRETCHEN MERRILL

St. Moritz, Switzerland

Sir:

Thank you for the fine article on Canada’s sweetheart. . . . Let us hope that the 12,500,000 prayers you mention tack on as a postscript the request that she never go to Hollywood. More power to Barbara Ann, and kudos to TIME for a most interesting story.

VERNON CRAWFORD

Charlottesville, Va.

Sir:

The second, fourth and fifth of the Olympic School Figures appearing with your article are drawn in accordance with standard practice, from the skater’s viewpoint. Not so with the other two, the rocker and the three-change-three. They are drawn from an observing fish’s viewpoint.

VERNON E. GARDNER

Washington, D.C.

¶ TIME’S Diagramer and his researcher knew they were skating on thin ice but hoped no fish were looking. (The Rs on the first and third figures should have been Ls and vice versa.)—ED.

Hopes & Prayers

Sir:

It is disappointing that the Status of Women Commission of the United Nations should receive such unsympathetic and undignified treatment from a magazine of the caliber of TIME [Jan. 26].

After centuries of control by men, the world is still seared by ever more frequent and violent wars and threats of war. Fear, oppression, poverty, disease and crime still stalk abroad.

Women have now been given the opportunity by the United Nations to take part in public affairs. They hope and pray that by the united effort of men & women working together, these specters will be banished from the world.

Throughout history women have encouraged and helped men in their endeavors. Is it too much to expect men to do likewise? . . .

(MRS.) JESSIE M. G. STREET

Australian Mission to the United Nations

New York City

¶ TIME shares Reader Street’s hope.—ED.

Careful!

Sir:

I wish to call your attention to a misquotation in the Religion section of your issue of Feb. 2. The writer for that section has placed an extra “not” in his quotation of Cardinal Griffin’s statement concerning the effect of contraceptive devices on the validity of marriage. This mistake changes the entire meaning. . . . One would expect a magazine like TIME with its great facilities and circulation to be more careful in its proofreading—or hire a more competent Religion Editor. . . .

LE ROY A. WAUCK

Chicago, Ill.

¶ TIME verified its facts, would expect the Supervising Psychologist of the Chicago State Hospital to verify his. Said Cardinal Griffin (as correctly quoted by TIME) : “With regard to the use of contraceptives, Pope Pius XI says: ‘The act of wedlock is . . . designed for the procreation of offspring and therefore those who . . . deprive it of its natural power and efficacy, act against nature and do something which is shameful and intrinsically immoral.’ It is the common teaching of Catholic theologians that contraceptive intercourse, whether with the aid of instruments or not, is not consummation of marriage.”—ED.

Treasure’s Tragedy

Sir:

I have long relished your movie reviews. . . . The brilliant article on Treasure of Sierra Madre [TIME, Feb. 2] is a joy. . . .

It was the first movie I ever saw without knowing something of its direction, cast or story. So it was a double thrill to watch the unfolding of this superb picture. . . .

(Miss) FRANCES MARVIN

San Francisco, Calif.

Sir:

Regarding your devoting the entire Cinema section to a review of Treasure of Sierra Madre, I have come to the conclusion that your reviewer must have fallen asleep in the movie-house and dreamed about all he wrote.

I saw Treasure nearly a month before your praising review was published, and I . . . could see nothing in it that would prompt such a raving acclaim for Bogart, Huston and Huston, the director.

RICHARD L. BROWN

Denver, Colo.

Sir:

. . . Treasure should have been released before the Jan. 1 deadline to qualify for the Academy Awards—which it would have won hands down in at least three departments: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (W. Huston). . . .

Treasure is the sort of picture most intelligent filmgoers have been hungry for, a hunger which has been sated only by the foreign markets of late. . . . I have never been a Bogart fan, but it is tremendously gratifying to realize that Hollywood’s evil star system can sometimes be defeated and that an erstwhile painfully stylized tough-guy hero can play an unsympathetic weakling and make him an absorbing character study. . . .

ALICE HARTMANN

Los Angeles, Calif.

Sir:

. . . Upon your high recommendation, I went to see Treasure, and witnessed a more remarkable study of human nature than I had believed Hollywood capable of. The tragedy of the whole thing was that the great majority of the audience seemed to be under the impression that the three Marx Brothers had the principal roles. . . .

It seems that the one fault of this film is in being so far above Hollywood’s normal output that it confuses most audiences. I guess Director Huston’s one neglected point was that of having explanatory pamphlets issued for lobby distribution.

E. L. STILLMAN

Sea Cliff, N.Y.

To Promote Policy

Sir:

. . . “For Export Only” [TIME, Jan. 12] criticized the U.S. Information Service’s handling of news here, saying in general that statements of leading Americans—and editorials of American newspapers—favoring immediate economic and military aid to the Chinese Government had been played down. . . . I believe it is not the intention of the American taxpayers or the American Government to support the USIS as a news service in the ordinary sense—that is, as a service carrying “all the news that’s fit to print.” I think the idea is that the USIS should be used as an instrument of the State Department’s policy.

It looks from here as if the State Department’s policy toward China is now to encourage reforms here as a prior condition to American help. Therefore, isn’t the USIS doing its allotted job if it makes it clear to China that strong elements of American opinion believe reforms must come first, and help second? . . .

Your article also says: “USIS headquarters in Shanghai . . . consistently trimmed its sails to the State Department’s anti-Chiang clique.” It seems to me this is a rather derogatory way of describing how the USIS must operate as a Government service. If it is going to function well it must carry out American policy, formulated in Washington. . . .

CHRISTOPHER RAND

Shanghai, China

Sir:

There are excellent reasons for USIS’ policy of stressing anti-U.S. aid editorials in its Chinese releases. Foremost is the thunderous barrage of Communist radio propaganda from Komsomolsk, North Shensi and way points, averaging seven hours daily. The Reds allege that the U.S. program of military and economic aid to China is mere camouflage for colonization of China by U.S. imperialism—and that Chiang and his corrupt henchmen are selling out their country.

USIS, it is plain, picks its material to give the lie to Communist charges; to prove that the U.S. press does not hold to a single imperialist-advertiser-dictated line; and to offset the pro-aid press comment funneled into China by other services, including Central News Agency of China, a government organ.

C. J. FERN JR.

Tokyo, Japan

¶ TIME doubts that any honest U.S. policy will be well served by twisting reports of U.S. opinion.—ED.

MM

Sir:

Permit me to briefly correct a minor mistake in your recent report on the purification of MM murine poliomyelitis virus by Dr. Frank Gollan [TIME, Feb. 2]. This strain of virus originated in this laboratory by direct transfer of human virus from man to hamsters, then further to mice. By derivation, therefore, the virus should have been called HH (human-hamster) rather than MM (mouse-monkey) as you surmise. The cryptic name MM, however, was given to the virus to memorialize the initials of the little boy who died from poliomyelitis.

CLAUS W. JUNGEBLUT, M.D.

Professor of Bacteriology

Columbia University

New York City

Sir:

Your report on the purification of the MM poliomyelitis virus . . . did not say that this work was made possible by the generous support of millions of American citizens of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis through its March of Dimes. These millions of men, women & children deserve to know that their contributions are bringing the control of infantile paralysis closer to realization, and that the working men & women of the laboratories are mindful of the part the public plays in making progress possible. . . .

MAURICE B. VISSCHER

University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, Minn.

Matters of Taste

Sir:

Wasn’t Bernard K. Frank’s letter [TIME, Jan. 19] about HAW (a tree) and Henry A. Wallace, a little bit on the other side of good taste? . . .

JAIME DE ANGULO

Big Sur, Calif.