Letters: Dec. 6, 1926

Slogans

Sirs: Observing in TIME, Nov. 8, your desire for a slogan, I submit the following, in competition with original subscribers : TIME waits for nothing, Everyone asks for TIME.

E. GEO. GUTHRIE Fargo, N. D. An exaggeration. If “everyone” asked for TIME the circulation would be 1,500,000,000.— ED. Sirs: “Unhappy Christmas the time would be without But TIME!” unhappier still, Christmas without NEVA E. BALL Tulsa, Okla. Another exaggeration. Many a Christmas will be happy without TIME. — ED. Sirs: mitted Having by taken Subscriber note of the Hennessley* I herewith submit : Save TIME— read it ! MRS. J. H. FRANSEN Whittier, Calif. Not bad. — ED. Sirs: In the matter of “better slogans” — A wish, a drop of ink, a dime† Remitted weekly, procures Eternal TIME. CHARLES E. KEITH San Francisco, Calif. Sirs: . . . Suggested slogan : Queen Elizabeth said : “All my possessions for one moment of time.” (Supposed to be her dying words.) F. ADAMS Cambridge, Mass. Sirs: “If you take the time to read TIME you save time.” Don’t send the $10 to Whittlesey, send it to me. W. A. NICKERT Philadelphia, Pa. Sirs: With Christmas at hand Send TIME to a friend EINAR HILSEN Minneota, Minn. Bad. — ED. Sirs: “Time out” said the football player. “TIME out,” said the business manager of TIME. J. S. HODGES Denison, Tex. Sirs:

Subscriber Whittlesey’s slogan wins the $10. As a Christmas slogan, it can’t be beat. Here is one you can use the year round.

TIME will tell. LIEUT. L. A. ELLIOTT, U. S. Edgewood Arsenal, Md. Good. But TIME has already used it occasionally. — ED. To Subscriber E. B. Whittlesey of Scofield, Ore., $10. Early in November he submitted the slogan There is no time like the present There is no present like TIME. Said TIME on Nov. 8: “Let other subscribers submit slogans. To that subscriber who, before Dec. 1, produces a better than Subscriber Whittlesey’s: $10. Otherwise, the $10 goes to Original Subscriber Whittlesey. — ED.” 167 slogans were submitted — of which the above printed ones are specimens. — ED.

Pious Cannibals Sirs: Somebody always seems to be starting an argument with you, and evidently every time this happens your circulation jumps another 1,000 or it is 10,000? Anyhow, you are on our advertising schedule for next year, largely because our advertising representatives, the H. K. McCann Company, know a good thing when they see it. No doubt your remarkable popularity is due to the good sportsmanship you dis play in printing letters from subscribers no matter how harshly they criticise you. We don’t propose to be very critical in this letter, but we must not let the opportunity pass to point out that your footnote, on TIME, Oct. the 25, p. 20, in which you explain that the Sandwich Islands were cannibal, will not make you any friends among the Hawaiians. You probably had forgotten that the Sandwich Islands is an obsolete name for Hawaii and that historians are pretty generally agreed that the natives of these islands even in their most primitive state, did not partake of human flesh. ALOHA ! GEORGE T. ARMITAGE Executive Secretary Hawaii Tourist Bureau Representing Honolulu, Hilo, Maui and Kauai Chambers of Commerce Official Publicity and Information Service for all the Hawaiian Islands Honolulu, Hawaii, U. S. A. Hawaiians anciently ate human hearts and livers, but only during their religious rites, and not for purposes of vulgar nutrition. — ED. Royal Astonishment Sirs:

In TIME, Nov. 22, you mention that Marie, Queen of Rumania, took a swim at the Chicago Racquet Club before visiting Gary.

Please allow me to correct you by saying that it was in the Illinois Women’s Athletic Club that she “donned the modish bathing garment” and spent some 20 minutes in the pool, accompanied by her daughter.

I am anxious to change the wrong impression as the I. W. A. C. is the largest Athletic Club for women in the world, and they not only own, but manage, their $4,500,000 Club House. . . .

The fact that we have a swimming pool on the 17th floor which holds 98,000 gallons of water occasioned in the Queen the greatest astonishment. She noticed this remarkable engineering feat without her attention being called to it, thus once more proving her constant alertness. . . .

DOROTHY FOLSOM

Member of the Board of Governors and Chairman of Athletics Chicago, Ill.

A.B.C.

Sirs:

I think that this news-item . . . should interest your subscribers.

. . . The newspaper “ABC” of Madrid, Spain, offers a prize of 50,000 pesetas, about $7,600, for the most convincing proof that Cristobal Colon, better known in America as Christopher Columbus, was born in Spain. The project has the backing of the Spanish Government, and essays should be sent before April 1, 1927, to the offices of “ABC,” Serano 55, Madrid, Spain.

ANNETTE D. BOND

Mt. Vernon, N. Y.

Paravanes Explained

Sirs:

As a British Naval Officer who specialized for several years in Submarines and anti-submarine work may I correct your definition of Paravanes (TIME, Nov. 8).

There are two distinct types of paravanes, the defensive and the explosive paravane. The explosive paravane was only perfected during the later months of the War and I think I can claim to be the only man who picked up a submarine under water, followed it through seven hours of the night and finally after fruitless attempts with depth bombs blew her up with the explosive paravane. This incident happened on the destroyer P33 specially fitted for anti-submarine work.

The defensive paravane is simply the old idea of the pilot boat which, after having put the pilot on board, makes fast a line from the bow of the ship and by putting the helm well over, runs out on the bow away from possibility of bumping the ship. Although towed the pilot boat can run out on the bow almost abreast of the vessel towing it.

The defensive paravane does not contain any explosive but is simply a hollow metal device somewhat shorter than a torpedo with outrigs and small balancing pontoons on each side. Should the mine strike the absolute stem of the vessel the paravane will not be of much use. The wire from the bow of the vessel to the paravane usually catches the mine and swings it towards the paravane, the mine blows itself up or if dead is cut from its moorings by the wire cutting device on the paravane and destroyed by gunfire from the ship. One defensive paravane is carried on each side of the vessel.

The latter development of the paravane, the “Explosive Paravane” is a much more mechanical proposition.

The paravane is fitted with a horizontal rudder and is towed astern of a fast destroyer. The horizontal rudder drives it under water and it can be forced to run at the maximum depth of a submarine.

The destroyer after locating the submarine under water by hydrophones, “Nash Fish” “Ryan Porpoise” or any one of the several fine instruments developed during the later months of the War, drops several depth bombs (much less powerful in submarine warfare than publicity led people to believe) finally with definite knowledge that the sub is still intact the paravane is streamed. The destroyer works up to speed (about four to five times the possible speed of a submarine under water) circles the area, crosses it several times, makes a shamrock course within the circle thus covering completely the whole area while the submarine is crossing it. It does not matter what depth the submarine is running the paravane is beneath it, the wire (which has electrical wires in its centre) crossing the hull of the submarine has a tendency to make the paravane curl under it, puts an extra strain on the winch of the towing destroyer, thus releasing a dynamometer switch and blowing up the paravane which is filled with lyddite. The cost of these explosive paravanes is, including the winch and apparatus, almost as high as that of a torpedo. Once paravane is streamed it is a very risky, if not impossible job to get it in without blowing it up. It is impossible make port with it because it will blow up on striking bottom ( being fitted with cross triggers in the head) so one has to be very sure that they have a submarine to deal with before putting the paravane out. TIME keeps me in touch with the world and I revel in it from cover to cover. K. B. THOMPSON, V.P. The Reese Advertising Agency Inc. New Orleans, La. Unpopular Prof. Sirs: I read your magazine every week for the simple reason that it is an assignment by my government Prof., a young Ph. D. of about your calibre. I’m just wondering if you are chronic razzers. . . . We are still high and dry out here and are going to stay that way. BRUCE R. HINSON Norman, Okla. Snooks Sirs: I have noticed your interest in names which can be spelled forward and backward, and now I appeal to your fairness and squareness to print the truth about a name (my name) which can only be spelled forward, but is none the less not always appreciated at its true importance : Snook. I am constantly being laughed at because my name is Snook, and yet we are a good family with three of us in the new Who’s Who. Homer Clyde Snook is a great electro-physicist. John S. Snook was a member of the 57th and 58th Congresses. And John Wilson Snook owns a 506 acre livestock ranch at Baker, Idaho, and is Prison Warden at Salmon, Idaho. People here in the East don’t seem to know about the Snook family, and I hope you will print this so they will. MONTAGUE MORTON SNOOK New York, N. Y.

Cotton-Blood Sirs : Allow me to congratulate you on the clear and concise manner with which you have dealt with the cotton situation in the South lately. I happen to live in the county which raises more cotton than any other county in the world as general rule and it is a vital matter to us since cotton is our lifeblood. JOSH H. GROCE Groce & Groce Attorneys at Law Waxahachie, Tex.

Case Sirs: In your article on IMMIGRATION, TIME, Nov. 8, you did Secretary Davis and the Department of Labor a serious injustice in relation to the case of Anna Komarmicka. I felt there must be some explanation which you did not have that would take the sting out of the article. I wrote to Secretary Davis, and herewith hand you his statement concerning the matter, which is most satisfactory and very creditable to the Department and to Secretary Davis. I feel sure you will make the necessary correction when you have all the facts before you. J. W. LEECH Leech & Leech Attorneys at Law Ebensburg, Pa. Anna Komarmicka, Chicago milliner, had last spring gone to visit her sick father in Poland. Later, in Paris, her permit to re-enter the U. S. was stolen. From the U. S. Consul at Paris she understood that she would have no trouble at Ellis Island. Nevertheless, she was ordered “excluded.” TIME erred in saying that she was ordered “deported.” She was admitted to the U. S., but with an order of exclusion pending against her.—ED.

The letter of the Secretary of Labor, Subscriber James J. Davis, follows: My dear Mr. Leech:

I have your letter of November 13 with clipping from TIME relative to the case of Anna Komarmicka who arrived in the United States without the documents required by the immigration law.

The Immigration Act of 1924 makes it the duty of steamship companies to ascertain that all alien passengers coming to the United States are in possession of proper travel documents and the failure of an alien passenger to present upon arrival the appropriate visa, or re-entry permit, places the steamship company under a penalty of $1000. You can understand that if the Government is lax in requiring the steamship companies to comply with the provisions of the laws relat ing to the documentation of passengers that it would seriously interfere with the administration of the immigration laws. Miss Komarmicka apparently could have secured without difficulty the appropriate documents had the steamship company used but ordinary precaution and requested her to do so. . . .

With the foregoing brief statement of the law I have now to inform you that the statement in TIME is incorrect because it does not give a full statement of the case. That publication neglected to state at the end of the sentence, “So Miss Komarmicka was ordered deported,” the con cluding portion of the Department’s decision relative to her case, that, however, she be admitted by parole pending adjustment or securing the proper documents which she should have had in her possession when she arrived. Miss Komarmicka was therefore not ordered deported but was after reasonable time for consideration of her case ordered released with order of exclusion still pending against her, and she is now in Chicago apparently satisfied with the handling of her case. . . .

For the Department to admit every alien who comes to the United States without documents of any kind upon the mere statement of the alien that those documents had been lost, would be a policy which would be fraught with much danger and could not but result in practical abro gation of the laws. It would also tend to make the steamship companies lax in the administration of so much of the law as is applicable to them, thus further burdening the service and leaving the Government without recourse for illegal transportation.

By thus admitting Miss Komarmicka, but entering an order of exclusion contingent upon the adjustment of the difficulties incident to the loss of travel documents, the Department not only rendered considera tion to the alien but protected its jurisdiction under the immigration laws. Sincerely yours,

JAMES J. DAVIS

Department of Labor Office of the Secretary Washington

*A mistake. The subscriber’s name was Whittlesey.— ED. †A mistake. Dimes are not accepted. TIME costs 15¼¢ per copy or $5 per year.—ED.