Letters, Nov. 23, 1936

British Censorship

Sirs:

Is it true that Britain is at present refusing visas to U. S. newspaper reporters, who wish to visit Palestine, where Arabs and Jews are disputing a mutual homeland? And India where frontier battles have been steadily hushed up?

H. R. Ekins, who just flew around the world, said he had promised not to comment on conditions in Palestine and India. Then he was given transit visas.

In view of the untrue general opinion that the British press is so much better than ours and the equally inaccurate idea that U. S. newspapers cover foreign news completely—I’d like to know if U. S. and other alien newsmen are being kept out of India and Palestine by London’s orders.

JOHN S. HAMILTON

Associate in Journalism

Graduate School of Journalism

Columbia University New York City

During Palestine’s recent period of martial law, all tourist visas were stopped. In the case of neither Palestine nor India, however, have any major U. S. press services experienced difficulty providing visas for their correspondents. Says New York World-Telegram’s, Reporter Ekins:

“I was not required to make any promises to the British Government regarding comments on conditions in Palestine and India. When I applied for visas, British passport officers and British Consul General, New York City, told me that special permission was required for newspapermen to visit Palestine and India. I then explained I was planning a rapid journey around the world and obviously halts would be so brief that it would be impossible for me to undertake anything but superficial surveys of situations. The passport officer immediately, upon learning the nature of my journey, cooperated to the utmost.”—ED.

Four-Pound Digest

Sirs:

In connection with the article on the Reader’s Digest in your issue of Nov. 2, it might be of news interest to your readers to know that a complete issue of that periodical is published simultaneously in Braille by the American Printing House for the Blind in Louisville. There is very slight resemblance in format as the greater bulk necessitated by the embossed letters results in three volumes, each 13½ in. by 11 in. and over an inch thick, instead of the pocket-size edition for those who can see. Originally each issue was incorporated in one volume, but this style book was too bulky for convenient handling. Even though they are surprisingly able to print on both sides of the pages, each month’s issue weighs four pounds.

At present, the magazine has 2,200 subscribers but the number of readers is much greater as the copies are usually forwarded to several other blind persons. Some are known to be regularly sent as far as Australia. Some are read to groups of the blind who have not learned to read the Braille system, so that the number of those who benefit from each issue is many times the 2,200 circulation. Many blind people without means receive the magazine because of the kindness of someone who has donated the subscription price.

The service which is rendered to the blind in enabling them to keep in touch with the events and the thought of the day is of inestimable value in brightening the darkness of their lives. They are able to converse intelligently on current events with their seeing friends, and feel that they have a place in the world alongside those who can see.

Besides the publishing of the Braille Digest, this institution prints over 2,000 volumes in such varied categories as Astronomy, Chemistry, Geology, Fairy Tales, Mathematics, Music, Philosophy, Physics, Psychology and several foreign languages. As in ink-printed books, the Bible is their bestseller. RAY JONES

Louisville, Ky.

Bellows’ Train

Sirs:

In TIME, Oct. 12, you speak of Artist George Wesley Bellows as being convivial with a capacity for beer. Could this be the same Bellows whose cockeyed painting hangs in the Metropolitan Museum in Manhattan? This painting of which I speak depicts a train coming up the banks of the Hudson on the left hand track. Since the New York Central is the only railroad with a right of way on the banks of the Hudson, and it doesn’t follow the English left style, and since the whole scene is not straight on its canvas, Bellows must have been in his mugs when he done it….

JAMES M. DE WITT

Milwaukee, Wis.

Writer De Witt refers to the late great Artist Bellows’ Up the Hudson, a view of the Hudson River and the New York Central’s tracks from Manhattan’s Riverside Drive. The train shown is indeed headed south on the left-hand track, but New York Central says such a scene is not beyond the bounds of possibility since the routing might be due to an emergency or the train might be a freight running backward. Widow Bellows declares that the train’s position was probably dictated by the needs of composition, does not see why the point should be brought up.—ED.

Simpson’s Status

Sir:

Re TIME, Oct. 26, p. 21 and the subsequent TIME items with regard to Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson:

1)Should King Edward VIII marry Mrs. Simpson would she become Queen of England, Empress of India etc.?

2) And should they have children would they be eligible for the throne?

3) Just what constitutes a “commoner”?

4) I understand the King’s sister-in-law, the Duchess of York, is a so-called commoner, although I believe her father was a duke or earl, but her daughters are constantly referred to as the next in line for the throne after their father.

5) In this connection, is the claim to the throne of the daughters of the Duchess of York prior to the claims of the sons of Princess Mary, sister of the King and the Duke of York, who I believe is older than the Duke of York? . . .

WESTWARREN GWALTNEY

Greensboro, N. C.

1) She would become legally no more and no less than Queen-Empress Mary was during the lifetime of George V, namely the Consort of His Majesty the King Emperor.

2) Yes. There is no such thing in British Law as a morganatic marriage.

3) The absence of any superior rank.

4) The Duchess of York was the daughter of a peer and as such enjoyed before her marriage the courtesy title Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. She was none the less technically a commoner. Upon her marriage she assumed the rank and style of her husband, namely she is a princess of the United Kingdom with the style Royal Highness.

5) Under the British Law the succession is: first, the Duke of York; second, his elder daughter Princess Elizabeth; third, her younger sister Princess Margaret Rose; fourth the Duke of Gloucester; fifth, the Duke of Kent; sixth, his son Prince Edward; seventh, Princess Mary; eighth, her elder son who enjoys the courtesy title of Viscount Lascelles; ninth, his brother Master Gerald David Lascelles.—ED.

Sirs:

Among the numerous conjectures regarding the future matrimonial essays of Mrs. Ernest Simpson it does not appear to have occurred to anyone that she cannot marry anyone in England for the simple reason that she still has one husband left. This is her first one.

Divorce for “incompatibility” is not recognized in England, so Husband No. 1 is still her lawful mate.

LELAND F. GRIBBLE

Seattle, Wash.

Any valid U. S. divorce is valid in Britain.—ED.

Low & Batchelor

Sirs:

In your Oct. 26 issue you published an article on “Lost Laughter” dealing with cartoons, and pointed out that Cartoonist Batchelor had been the outstanding cartoonist from the angle of novelty, largely because of the character he had created—a politician with a silk hat but wearing little else.

Now England’s foremost cartoonist, Low has for some time had as his piece-de-resistance an elderly Englishman, ample of girth, in a Turkish bath setting, usually making some remark of a topical nature beginning with “Gad sir—.”

Because of the similarity it would be an interesting point to see who was first in introducing their character.

J. P. DERINGER

New York City

Independently arrived at, Cartoonist Low’s bulbous “Colonel Blimp” uttered his first upper-class fatuities in the London Evening Standard in April, 1934. Cartoonist Batchelor’s fat, silk-hatted “Old Deal” first appeared in the New York Daily News on Jan. 5, 1936.—ED.

$10 Word

Sirs:

There is a saying that a new word added to one’s vocabulary is worth $10, so I avidly reached for my Webster’s Twentieth Century Unabridged when my eyes lit upon “logorrheic” on p. 8 of your Nov. 2 issue. I felt cheated when I found nothing between logometric and Logos. Rather than lose $10 worth of culture I am risking 3¢ to ask you to elucidate.

ROBERT J. PEARCE

Optometrist Greensboro, N. C.

Sirs:

On p. 8, col. 1 of the Nov. 2 issue you use the word “logorrheic”—I nearly fell off the chair when I read it, hurried to my Oxford Dictionary (last edition) but it wasn’t listed. This morning I couldn’t find it in the office dictionary and now I am bothered. Where did you get it and what does it mean? MAURICE AGGELER

Denver, Colo.

Logorrheic is an adjective founded upon the Greek roots logos (word) and rhein (to flow). Webster’s New International Dictionary lists the noun TIME used adjectivally: “Logorrhea (psychopathological). Excessive and often incoherent talkativeness.”—ED.

Inoffensive Rotary

Sirs:

Strange to relate, TIME erred again. In your issue of Oct. 23 in re Surgeon General Parran’s crusade against Syphilis you state that neither National or Columbia will allow the word to be used over their networks. On Aug. 25 on invitation I talked before the Montreal Rotary Club for 30 minutes about Syphilis, using the word several times. The Rotary Club received many comments from radio listeners both in U. S. and Canada. The talk was not censored before being broadcast due to Columbia’s faith that Rotary would not broadcast anything offensive or objectional.

JOHN E. WHITE, M.D.

Malone, N. Y. Benson’s Merits

Sirs:

Though I am not the type of reader who would cancel his subscription to TIME over a difference of opinion, it is necessary to take exception to your remarks on Senator Elmer A. Benson who has been elected to the governorship of Minnestoa by a 5-to-3 majority | TIME, Nov,9 |.

It is quite unjust to infer that Mr. Benson was elected on any other consideration than his own merits, combined with the merits of the progressive Farmer-Labor movement in which he has become a leader in his own right. His total vote in the election, as tabulated thus far, exceeds the combined votes of Farmer-Labor and Democratic nominees to offices which were not affected by the withdrawal of Democratic candidates for governor and U. S. senator.

Nor can it be said that Mr. Benson owed his election to the fact that Minnesota’s late Governor Floyd B. Olson had adopted him as a successor. Elmer Benson’s record during his few months in the senate proves that he has a mind of his own, as witness his American youth act, his investigation of the black legion, his proposal of a liberalizing amendment to the constitution, and his stoppage of the Minneapolis and St. Louis railroad grab. These accomplishments would do credit to any man’s six years in the senate, to say nothing of six months. Then, with no previous experience in running for office, Mr. Benson went out and conducted a drive for election which would have done credit to the most seasoned campaigner.

Forty-one years old, Elmer Benson looks like a scant 30. Four years out of a country bank, he is totally devoid of egotism, pomposity, or malice. These qualities, with his transparent honesty and his spotlessly clean personal record, did as much as any other factors to win his election. You will hear a lot more of Elmer Benson in the next few years. GERALD R. ASFALG

Red Wing, Minn.

Quiet San Diego

Sirs:

Hustling Los Angeles may not resent TIME’S omission (Nov. 9) of her port at San Pedro as the scene of idle ships in the current maritime dispute. But quiet San Diego would like it known that two, not 22, vessels were tied up at her docks at the strike’s outset.

Not even when Max Miller “covered the waterfront” for the Sun in pre-Depression years were 22 commercial ships able to moor in San Diego at one time. The resultant traffic congestion would be unthinkable.

HAROLD KEEN

San Diego Sun San Diego, Calif.

By the Sun’s current Waterfront Coverer Keen, TIME stands corrected.—ED.

Fairness for Franklin

Sirs:

In your entertaining pre-election analysis of the press, you made reference to the pro-Roosevelt New York Post, carrying my column predicting a Roosevelt landslide. The implication of partisanship was doubtless based on my avowed sympathy for the New Deal but I think it only fair to point out that this column, We, The People, was carried by 56 newspapers, including such Republican organs as The Washington Star and the Des Moines Register, as well as some of the Gannett newspapers. It is also fair to point out that my prophecy of a landslide for President Roosevelt was quite accurate and was made because I had sound reasons to believe it would happen, not simply because I wanted it to happen. The election has made such a shambles of the “leadership” of a large part of the Press, that I think you owe it to the papers which carried my column and are still carrying it—often against the opinion of the editors and publishers involved—to correct the suggestion that my writings were confined to strongly pro-New Deal papers or were part of an organized Democratic cheering-section.

JAY FRANKLIN

Washington, D. C.

Widseth’s Penalty

Sirs:

Your statement on p. 22 of the Nov. 9 issue of TIME is a terrible injustice to Ed Widseth. Under the picture of Toth’s touchdown your caption is “A slugging just before made it possible.” The penalty for slugging is one-half the distance to the goal line and removal of the player from the game. Obviously Getchell did not accuse Widseth of slugging. Then why should you make so damning an accusation against . . . one of the cleanest players in the Big Ten. The penalty for unnecessary roughing is 15 yards. I was sitting where I had a good view of the play. My own opinion is that Widseth used his forearm to prevent Don Geyer crawling and deserved no more than a warning, although I have always regarded Getchell an excellent referee. Obviously Widseth did not hurt Geyer. In any case, I think your magazine owes Widseth a public apology. . . .

W. T. RYAN

University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, Minn.

After the Northwestern-Minnesota game, Referee Getchell said he had imposed the unnecessary roughness penalty on Widseth because he “hit an opposing player twice in the face.” TIME’S use of the word “slugging” to describe the blows was not intended to be technical but descriptive.—ED.

Pieper’s Job

Sirs:

In your issue of Nov. 16, p. 27, the article headed “Gambler’s Progress,” you refer to me as a bookmaker from Chicago. It is true I am from Chicago but don’t know the first thing about making book, and have never been associated with any kind of gambling business. . .

PAT PIEPER

Chicago, Ill.

To Announcer Pat Pieper of the Chicago Cubs, apologies for associating him with the wrong sport.—ED.

Man of the Year

Sirs:

I presume TIME is open for nominations tor the Man of the Year. So I suggest that you publish his photograph on next week’s front cover instead of waiting until January as in other years. In view of what happened on Nov. 3, the whole world already knows who he is. For TIME to wait until January before announcing him would be a journalistic and unTIMEly anticlimax.

WILLIAM B. LIPPHARD

Yonkers, N. Y.

Sirs:

Isn’t it about time that you began taking your annual consensus on who deserves the first TIME cover picture of 1937? My candidate is Edward VIII. What with this thing and that, in the first year of his reign he stirred up more world-wide interest in the British throne than his father did in 26. Floreat Edward!

L. L. BACON

New York City

What other readers favor what other candidates for TIME’S 1936 Man of the Year?—ED.

Chiang v. Roosevelt

Sirs:

… In the face of one of the most historic tributes ever paid a man, with the butcher, baker and candlestick-maker intensely aroused over the reverberating election result, TIME for Nov. 9 published on its cover a likeness, not of the man Roosevelt, but of the Premier of China, Chiang Kaishek. If I get a carton of wet cigarets for Christmas, I won’t be as disappointed. . . .

EDWARD HARRIS

St. Louis, Mo.

Sirs:

Your covers for November show a Chink & Polack. Are you aware that F.D.R. was elected?

J. J. CONNOLLY

Brooklyn, N. Y.

In the six campaign months preceding election day, TIME’S cover was occupied by seven active U.S. political figures including Nominee Landon, Republican Boss Hamilton, Senator Harrison, Republican Braintruster Taft, Governor Talmadge. On Nov. 9, no literate person needed to be told that Franklin Roosevelt had been re-elected and no news story had greater world significance than the nationalist resurgence of China under Premier Chiang.—ED.