• U.S.

Letters: May 21, 1928

11 minute read
TIME

Throb

Sirs:

Let me in my humble capacity as a male, second the splendid suggestion of Mrs. Roy L. Fillmore (TIME, April 23) that “our great-souled President” should fly with Charles August Lindbergh. What a majestic inspiration! What headlines it would make in the newspapers! The whole country would throb with emotional excitement! The Lone Eagle and Silent Cal lost in the infinity of space! It is an appropriate subject for a national anthem or a Republican platform. I never understood why President Coolidge was slighted when Lindbergh was taking up Congress and the Senate recently in Washington. But it is never too late to correct an error!

Williamstown, Mass.

Shut

Sirs:

Subscriber Henderson certainly started something with his letter about Coolidge and Lindbergh. Personally I wish he would “shut up.” FRANK RODLEY

San Antonio, Tex.

Roosevelt Flew

Sirs:

It may interest Ella Forbes to know that President Roosevelt not only rode in automobiles, but that he flew in an airplane as well. I do not have the exact date and circumstances at hand, but am sure TIME can verify the statement.* J. F. Bassett should also be informed that airplanes are now available in quantity, in which one may travel in the comfort—not of the plebeian trolley car and subway—but of the most luxurious of limousines. At the recent American Aircraft Show in Detroit at least ten companies exhibited airplanes of this type, several of them advertising “Brewster-built” bodies. Colonel Lindbergh’s new plane, all the Ford Air Liners, Byrd’s planes, the Stinson plane holding the world’s endurance record, and many others, are of the closed cabin type. . . .

R. S. BARNABY Lieutenant (C.C.) U.S.N.

Wright Field

Dayton, Ohio

To the issue, raised by Subscriber Henderson, as to whether President Coolidge fly (TIME, April 9), the President last week put an end (see p. 7).—ED.

Challenge

Sirs:

“It can now be stated as a fact that Wall Street has a definite assurance from President Coolidge, in substance as follows:

“In the event that the Republican Convention fails to react “right”—i. e., normally, wholeheartedly, fairly promptly—to another candidate, President Coolidge will consent to being renominated.”

I write to ask what authority you have for that statement for I believe it is false.

TIME is on trial in my reception room. If it proves unreliable, out it goes never to return.

I challenge your statement as “another campaign lie.” Am I right or wrong? Please show me. A. M. WEBSTER

Portland, Ore.

Reception Room Subscriber Webster is wrong, but only the event can “show.”

—ED.

Thorough-Going

Sirs:

As it must to all men, and women, comes the desire to reprimand TIME. This time, it is because of its discourteous attitude, not only towardMrs. Alfred 13. Smith, but toward the women whom, TIME considers, will be alienated by the Oliver Street wife of the Governor of New York. There may be some whose presidential candidates are chosen with a careful eye toward a social White House, but most women favor a candidate for reasons more fundamental than the social aptitudes of his wife.

Do you realize that you have put Mrs. Smith of Oliver Street and Albany in a category with “spittoons, chewed cigars, damp shirt sleeves and profanity?”

Is not a thoroughgoing reprimand in order?

BEATRICE MORSE CORR

(Mrs, S. B. Corr) Milwaukee, Wis.

TIME put Mrs. Smith in no category. For a description of Mrs. Smith, let Subscriber Corr turn to TIME, Jan. 30.—ED.

Hammond Advised

Sirs:

My answer to John H. Hammond Jr. [TIME, May 7] is that he should read Whistler’s “The Gentle Art of Making Enemies,” and see how utterly impossible it is for a police official to appreciate Art. . . .

Dear friend, primum vivere, deinde philosophari!

John, read TIME regularly, and you will be educated someday …. maybe!

HENRY ANATOL MONAT

University of Arkansas School of Medicine Little Rock, Ark.

Pot, Kettle

Sirs:

I was never really interested in politics until I started reading TIME. . . .

It is a shame for TIME’S letter department to be used as a medium by TIME readers for slamming previous letter writers. Letters of criticism and appreciation are of great value, but when they are written just to give digs at some other reader who has written to TIME, it really does not help anybody one way or another and seems a rather childish attitude. This may sound as if the pot were calling the kettle black, but I assure you that the pot does not feel as black as the kettle looks.

HELEN W. PALMER

Haverford, Pa.

Bakersfield

Sirs:

Letters from subscribers are often as interesting as TIME magazine, itself.

For instance, the letter from Thelma B. Miller in your April 2 issue is most surely a gem of description.

“. . . the perfume of roses and orange blossoms . . . heavy in the night-shadowed streets,” and, “. . . long night rides through the black and silver of a moonlit country-side.”

Such delightfully alluring expressions are not only a joy to read but make one wish that all climes were like that of Bakersfield.

I hope it shall some day be my privilege and opportunity to pay Bakersfield, Calif, a visit.

JOHN GOULD

Chicago, Ill.

Sabbath

Sirs:

. . . Under the heading of “Gifts” [May 7], you make the statement that “Reformed Jewry holds its services in the U. S. in English, on Sunday instead of Saturday.” . While it is true that some Reformed Congregationshold their services on Sunday, the preponderate number of them still cling to the traditional sabbath.

ABRAM S. MAGIDA

Kansas City, Mo.

Gallant, Solid

Sirs:

The “geometric shaped ideas” magazine I should name TIME. . . . Sometimes I wonder if Voltaire or Anatole France are not included in the editorial staff. As a foreigner, in order to get a closer glimpse of American spirit I have read almost every kind of journalism actually published, and in my opinion, TIME gets the highest praise. The gallant stubbornness of its statements as well as the solid documentation in the background are amazing, and in addition you can always sense a subtle circumspection.

With my wishes for everlasting success,

PORFIRIO DIAZ RON

New York, N. Y.

Flappers Flayed

Sirs:

It requires much time for your magazine to reach this isolated corner of Morocco, hence it is but at this late date that I can inform you of a slight error in your number for February 27 which reached me but yesterday. . . .

In the above mentioned issue on page 13 in an article entitled “Bombs,” you mention a supposed bombardment of a market of several rebel villages in the Riff. Permit me to inform you that your correspondent was . . . misinformed. There are none and have been no rebellious tribes in the Riff since the spring of 1927 when . . . the last of the partisans of Aid el Krim [were] subdued and brought under French control. . . . Since then the Riff has been absolutely peaceful, on the French side of the divide at least. . . .

Your correspondent was probably thinking of bombardments which often take place of the weekly “souks” or markets of the tribes of the Oued el Abid, the only remaining zone inhabited by hostile Berbers north of the Atlas, at present surrounded on three sides by our military posts. This is a long, mountainous valley between the Middle and the High Atlas ranges and some two hundred and fifty miles southwest of the Riff. . . .

If you see fit to publish this note, kindly do not mention my name as I have spent these last years endeavoring to avoid unwelcome notoriety and the gushing missives of American flappers incurred because of the fact that I happen to be the only American officer in the Legion and of the false romantic reputation which the Legion has acquired in America due both to the absurd cinema productions which have attempted to pictureour life and the mendacious writings of Christopher Wren.

E. … G. … H. …

Lieutenant of the French Foreign Legion In camp in the Atlas Mountains, south of Marrakech, Morocco

From Teheran to Luristan Sirs:

I will thank you to insert the enclosed denial in your TIME magazine with reference to the article published in the issue of April 23, which appeared on p. 16, under the heading of “Persia,” and entitled “Crown Prince Works. . . .”

The Denial: “There appeared recently in the Press an article in which it was stated that His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia left Teheran at the head of an expedition to Louristan, and that His Imperial Highness the Crown Prince was appointed as Regent during the absence of the Shah from Teheran.

“This news is entirely without foundation. His Imperial Majesty goes often on tours of inspection to the Military Camps in the various parts of the country, and has recently gone on such a tour of inspection to Louristan and to some of the other camps in that vicinity.”

This Legation has always had a high regard for your magazine, and would like very much to see that your news is correct. . . .

For your own guidance, as to His Imperial Majesty’s antecedence, I am enclosing herein a copy of His Biography. This Legation is a subscriber to your newsmagazine. . . . D. MEFTAH

Persian Minister Washington, D. C.

Bigotism Sirs:

Sad to relate, the American press has never been freed of racial prejudice. Your worthy weekly, too, is guilty of bigotism. You are not a Protestant paper: you are not afraid of the Klan. You must be Catholic. At any rate, you never have given the Jews a square deal; you have always begrudged them every little bit of the sparing praise you have ever accorded them. __ In your article on Yehudi Menuhin [TIME, Feb. 6, p. 24], the Jewish violin prodigy, you gave a sketch of his life; you sang his praises; you told us how he was a Tartar; in fact, you did everything but mention that he is Jewish. This you did deliberately, with malice aforethought. Whenever one speaks of Yehudi, one simply can’t leave out the fact that he is Jewish. You stupid, blind and jealous editors did. I like your nerve.

And then again, in your review of Gdal Staleski’s book [TIME, April 9, p 32] you just couldn’t resist the temptation to try to slam the Jews. You mention a list of Jewish composers among them Ravel, Mendelssohn, Rubinstein, Saint-Saens, and Bloch. Very fine and good. But you clever editors must have your say. A little note does the trick! So you lightly dismiss the Jewish composers with “But Beethoven, Wagner, Strauss, Tschaikowsky, etc., etc., vere Gentiles.” Your entire attitude is nothing short of insulting to the intelligence of your readers. It is 100% befitting vacuocaputs. Do you think for a moment you can get away with that “etc., etc.,”? Must you confess you were stumped, or were you too lazy to look up any more Gentile names? Whichever it was, the “etc., etc.,” was very derogatory and left the impression of, “Why bother to mention any more Gentiles? There are ever so many brilliant millions of Gentile composers,” as you doubtlessly intended your note to effect. . . .

Then you list conductors. Almost every eminent one in America is, as stated, Jewish. You must admit that. But then your wise editorial head induces you to add, with just the faintest trace of insult, “But Toscanini is no Jew.” Toscanini is not Jewish. What of it? Take away Toscanini, and whom have you left for a list of Gentile conductors, I ask you? Take away Toscanini, and whom have you among the Jews? I refer you to your own printed list, which includes all the conductors of note in America. . . .

MIKE L. RUBENSTEIN New York, N. Y.

Reporter

Sirs:

Perhaps your PRESS editor would like to know that the new Life contains a letter page similar to TIME’s, called “Roses and Razzberries.” Also, the young married couple that appear weekly on the cover of Liberty are expecting a baby.

I am a reporter and I notice these things. I also read TIME.

GORDON MILLER

New York City

Let Reporter Miller continue Life, Liberty and the pursuit of TIME.—ED.

Taft’s Title

Sirs:

It annoys me that TIME, so meticulously accurate and so intolerant of inaccuracy in others should repeatedly refer as it does again in the issue of May 7 to William Howard Taft as “Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court.”

Mr. Taft’s official title is, as everybody knows or should know, “Chief Justice of the United States.”

CLAUDE J. PERNIN

Loyola University Chicago, Ill.

*Ex-President Roosevelt went up in a Wright plane with Flier Arch Hoxie, in St. Louis, October, 1910. This was before the Atlantic Ocean had been crossed by any air vehicle, and only one year after Bleriot had crossed the 20-mile English Channel.—ED.

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com