Letters: Dec. 2, 1929

Has the Guts

LISTEN TIME HOW CAN YOU CAPTION PIANIST MARGARET SHOTWELL A BROKEN DOLL WHEN SHE HAS THE GUTS TO KEEP ON LIVING AND WORKING IN SPITE OF HER LOST FORTUNE STOP HOW CAN YOU CALL THE GIRL A DOLL WHO DEVOTES EIGHT HOURS A DAY TO THE PIANO WHEN SHE MIGHT WITH HER YOUTH AND CHARM BE MAKING

WHOOPEE STOP TIME HOW MANY GIRLS DO YOU KNOW WHO COULD AFFORD A LIFE OF LUXURIOUS EASE WHO CHOOSE INSTEAD THE EXACTING LIFE OF A PROFESSIONAL PIANIST STOP THE SHOTWELL SAGA WHICH YOU QUOTE HAS ONLY BEGUN FOR PIANIST SHOTWELL IS AMERICAN BORN OF MAYFLOWER STOCK AND MONEY HAS NEVER BEEN HER STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT EITHER IN HER LIVING HER FRIENDS OR HER MUSIC

MARGARETS MOTHER Omaha, Neb.

Niffles

Sirs:

Mr. Gallagher’s letter (TIME, Nov. 18, p. 8) suggests the story of the American who had been constantly corrected in his pronunciation of Eng-lish proper names, until his patience was well-nigh exhausted: his English friend happening to refer to Niagara Falls, the American was prompt to correct him. “No, no,” he said, “at home we pronounce it Niffles.”

During the War it was an Englishman who said the Americans were worse than the English in the difference between spelling and pro-nunciation. “You spell it W-i-l-s-o-n and pronounce it ‘House,'” he remarked.

Shades of Enroughly. . . .

ROBERT WITHINGTON

Northampton, Mass.

Stanford’s Women

Sirs:

Upon the Stanford campus women swarm. No co-eds these, but members of that most efficient administrative machine which enables President of Stanford and Secretary of the Interior Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur to stand with such grace with a foot on either side of the continent. The Stan-ford Employment Office and Dining Hall System are chiefed and staffed by women, the Registrar’s Office and Library have two men each directing a staff composed almost entirely of women, and in every nook and cranny of Stanford, women secretaries write, type, talk, phone.

At the head of all is a most remarkable superwoman, Miss Helen Ella True, de jure Secretary to the President, but de facto President of Stanford in the absence of Dr. Wilbur. Her chief qualities: imperturbability and omniscience. She out-poker-faces that other Helen of California, and she knows instantly every rill of information that affects or may affect the University. Is there an unwise movement developing in the student body? She touches invisible button number one, and the matter ends. Does a faculty member sponsor a doubtful local issue? Invisible button number two avoids the difficulty, and it is done so skillfully that neither student nor faculty member holds the slightest rancor, nor in fact quite knows how it all came about.

Although it is rumored on the campus that Miss True’s salary is one that many a savant would be glad to have, she lives most simply, and is most human and unassuming. Her work is a triumph for womankind.

As a graduate of a man-staffed Eastern college, visiting Stanford for the first time, its efficient woman-staffed administration seemed to me to be TiME-worthy.

J. WILSON

Palo Alto, Calif.

To Subscriber Wilson praise and thanks for an able report.—Ed. Koontra Sirs:

In your excellent paper of Oct. 21! noted a letter from George L. Moore explaining about the word lagniappe (lanny-yap). I wish to men-.tion that our “oldtime” Negroes (and many whites also) used a word which meant exactly the same thing; the word was Koontra, and is supposed to be of African origin. No matter how small a purchase they made, they never failed to ask for Koontra.

I don’t know if that word was in use in other parts of the South, but it was much used here; however, I have not heard it in many years.

CHARLES J. HANFORD

Jacksonville, Fla.

Wilmer Belittled

Sirs: We have been led to assume that your journal carries an account of the times with a careful and well considered valuation of events by cognizant persons. Your blatant characterization of Dr. William Wilmer as “incontestably the greatest eye surgeon the U. S. has ever had” in the issue of Oct. 28, shows how superficial your analysis must be. Among a fairly large acquaintanceship in the profession, I know of no one who would concur in such an opinion. I applaud with you the direction of a large fund to the advancement of our knowledge of eye diseases. Great good should eventually come from an institution with the facilities and purpose of the Wilmer Institute, though it is a trifle premature at this time to propound the theory that an institute just dedicated already outranks the great clinics of the world, that have cared for many people, have trained many first class men and where monumental advances in the field have been made. A man is commonly supposed to be famous, not for equipment that he owns, but for his accomplishments. The greatest ophthalmic surgeon of the country should be exceptional either in his technical skill or in the contributions he has made to knowledge of the subject. I say, without prejudice, that Dr. Wilmer is a fine surgeon, but no greater than is to be found in every city in the U. S. as large as Washington. He has had a good influence in the profession, but he has done no monumental work, has made no serious contribution to our knowledge, through a period of years that has seen tremendous advances in ophthalmology. Though I hold no brief for any one of them, there are several men in this country who have been leaders in this movement—among them Dr. de Schweinitz, who gets honorable mention being “also the son of a bishop.” A gift of four million dollars, the reward of a fashionable practice, may carry with it notoriety, but it does not make a man great. If you can convince me that your acclaim is well grounded, I shall also believe that Bernarr Macfadden i< the greatest journalist of the country. A. M. CULLER

University Hospital Ann Arbor, Mich.

Before Dr. William Holland Wilmer became professor of ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University, the University’s President Frank Johnson Goodnow and Professor William Henry Welch both wrote: “It is generally conceded that Dr. Vilmer is the outstanding ophthalmologist in this country. . . . The faculty of John? Hopkins University considers that the opportunity of Dr. Wilmer becoming professor of ophthalmology in this institution constitutes an opportunity which is unlikely to be offered again within a genera-tion.” At the dedication of the Wilmer Institute, Dr. Ernest Fuchs of Vienna (TIME. Nov. 25), under whom Dr. Wilmer studied 40 years ago, and Dr. George Edmund de Schweinitz of Philadelphia testified to the same effect.—Ed. Wing-Shooting

Sirs:

Duck Hunters, Attention!

Issue of Nov.111, p. 60. “If the hunted thing is in the middle of the picture it is killed.’5 From your description of the camera gun, the quoted statement may account for numerous alibis and limited bags. In wing shooting, the gun is never aimed directly at the object to be struck, except on the rare occasion of a straightaway bird, neither rising nor falling. For cross flight at 40 yards distance, it would be necessary to back that goose eight feet.

W. R. SLAUGHTER

Langley Field, Va.

Baptists Too

Sirs:

In TIME, Nov. n, p. 51, alleged mention is made of the “better known” denominations that ordain women. The Baptists ordained one in 1882 and many since, and the Free Baptists ordained one in 1878. Aren’t Baptists well known?

DRYDEN WM. PHELPS

Berkeley, Calif.

Wishes to Goodness

Sirs:

Your magazine is just what I’ve been seeking. I read many publications that purport to serve a similar need, but in each case I have been dis-appointed. Rehashes and incoherent excerpts are not only bewildering but maddening. Your magazine covers the ground in a style that is both provocative and individual. I wish to goodness I had been a subscriber from the first issue.

Let me suggest that you get out a yearly supplement. This would cover the happenings of the twelve months pruned so as to cover highlights and consequences and significance. Should you decide to go in for this, list me as one of the first subscribers.

EDWARD F. FIXXEY

New York City

A yearly supplement will be considered.—ED. Great Levelers Sirs:

Regarding Stock Market Conditions, it takes no stretch of imagination to realize that this Country has been Luncheonized, Propagandized, Silentized, Lobbyized, Mergerized, Brokerized, Bankerized, Barristerized, Brisbaneized, Bubble-ized, Powerized and also Mellonized by the “Greatest Secretary since Hamilton.”

Were it not for the Federal Reserve Law and the Prohibition Amendment, it would be difficult to vision the seriousness of what might be hap-pening at the present time.

Your TIME and FORTUNE should prove great levelers in aiding the people to keep their feet on the ground during the readjustment period.

WILLIAM VARISKI

Wheeling, W. Va.