• U.S.

Letters, Aug. 28, 1939

10 minute read



In TIME, Aug. 7 Paul V. McNutt, replying to Norman Thomas’ charges against him, rather seems to gloat over the fact that organized labor raised no protest against his confirmation by the Senate to the post of Security Administrator.

He does not state, as he should if he wanted to be fair, that his confirmation was rushed through within a few hours of the announcement of his appointment. Organized labor had no opportunity to protest.

McNutt’s anti-labor record stands out like a sore thumb and his attempt to make it seem to appear that organized labor is friendly to him is hypocritical beyond measure.

Organized labor can never forget McNutt’s strikebreaking policy and tactics. Neither does organized labor have any delusions of the leopard changing his spots. . . .

J. R. BUTLER President Southern Tenant Farmers Union Memphis, Tenn.

Batholithic Intrusions


In reference to the letter on Antarctic Coal in TIME, Aug. 14 by Frederick W. Foote and your editorial comment, may I clarify the matter?

Admiral Byrd did not mean, of course, that one seam of coal would provide unlimited resources to the U. S. He was merely stressing the point that coal has been discovered both by the Byrd expeditions and by other expeditions … in the Antarctic continent. . . . Coal seams up to seven feet in thickness have been discovered . . . and estimates by such men as Sir Edgeworth David and Dr. Griffith Taylor indicate that in extent the coal reserves are possibly second only to those of the U. S. (See Antarctic Adventure and Research by Dr. G. Taylor, Appleton, 1930, pp. 100-101.)

Your editorial comment apparently came from some unauthoritative source, for analysis of specimens at Harvard University indicate the coal is sub-anthracite. Its weathered appearance may have led even men in the field to surmise its quality to be poor. This of course is due to the fact that some of the coal seams have been exposed, and have therefore undergone oxidation and alteration.

It is certainly true that Antarctic coal will not be important to the U. S. in the near future. However, no mineral could be more valuable, in the perpetually frozen country where artificial heat is essential for maintaining human life. . . . There are many contacts between batholitic intrusions and ancient sedimentary rocks which generally are the locations of valuable mineral deposits. No great mineral bonanzas have been discovered to date. However, no continent the size of Antarctica has failed to produce a wealth of mineral deposits.

The present interests of the U. S. in establishing the U. S. Antarctic Service is to make available knowledge as to the potential value of those areas of Antarctica to which the U. S. has logical claims.

DR. PAUL A. SIPLE Geographer to the U. S. Antarctic Service Department of the Interior Washington, D. C.



Regarding Mr. Axelrod’s suggestion that ex-Presidents serve on a foreign relations committee [TiME, July 24] and Thomas Toberty’s nai’ve backslap [TiME, Aug. 14], I’d like to present the problem in a more factual manner.

First. A President didn’t get that way through being “unpolitical.” Herbert Hoover’s Addresses Upon the American Road, 1933-1938, is crowded with proof that an ex-President never stops campaigning for the good old party—and to hell with the country!

Second. An ex-President invariably got to be an ex because a party diametrically opposed to his own defeated him at the polls. Why should any given party be saddled with its defeated opposition? An ex-President can comment, advise, warn, appraise, effectively enough as it is. He assuredly should not be allowed to make policy in foreign relations—since home policy under the serving President largely determines foreign policy.

Third. If a President’s policies are indefinitely acceptable to the nation, it works into a beautiful argument for third terms.


New Mexico’s Chavez


As a subscriber and reader of TIME for many years, I could not help but note your article on p. 10 of the issue of July 31, in which you refer to Honorable Dennis Chavez, U. S. Senator from New Mexico, as “New Mexico’s other, but unadmired, Senator: tea-colored Dennis Chavez. . . .”

I do not know what sources of information TIME has, nor upon what you base your statement . . . but may I say that Senator Chavez was elected by an overwhelming majority of 25,000 votes both times he ran as a candidate for Member of the House of Representatives. . . .

As further evidence of your “unadmired” Senator’s popularity, may I say that TIME Magazine, other magazines, and all of the newspapers of the U. S., always considered, and rightly so, that the late Senator Bronson M. Cutting was one of the most powerful, influential, beloved, and “admired” citizens of the State of New Mexico, and in 1928 Senator Cutting was elected as a Republican U. S. Senator by an overwhelming majority of something around 30,000 votes. In 1934, when TIME Magazine’s “unadmired” Senator Chavez ran against Senator Bronson M. Cutting for a seat in the-U. S. Senate, Senator Cutting, according to the official returns, was elected over your “unadmired” Senator Chavez by only 1,284 votes.

May I also add that at the last general election in 1936, the people of the State of New Mexico elected Senator Chavez a U. S. Senator by a majority of over 19,000.

It would appear, therefore, that, according to the election returns of the last four general elections in the State of New Mexico, Senator Chavez has been other than “unadmired” by the good and kind people of the State of New Mexico. . . .

As a very ardent and devoted reader of TIME, I believe that a gross injustice has been done to the people of the State of New Mexico because of your undignified and, certainly, unwarranted misnomer of Senator Chavez. May I venture to say, Mr. Editor, that Senator Chavez’ ancestors were upon the American continent, that is now the United States of America, prior to the time that your forefathers were here. . . . This reflects no discredit upon you, or anyone else, as there are thousands of loyal American citizens who cannot trace their ancestry to the early Spanish colonists in the Southwest, or to the noble American colonists of Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. . . . We are Americans also, Mr. Editor. . . .


¶ TIME’S viewpoint is national, not New Mexican. In describing Senator

Chavez as “unadmired,” in contradistinction to admired Senator Hatch, TIME had in mind the Senate’s estimate of the two men. The day Mr. Chavez was sworn in to the Senate, a group of that body’s most distinguished members (Norris, Johnson, Nye, La Follette, Shipstead) pointedly left the chamber. That Senator Chavez is tea-colored, like the good U. S. constituents who elect him, is neither disgraceful nor untrue.—ED.

Parliamentary Opinion


In case other readers should find no time to write, I submit an opinion that your TIME differed with parliamentarians and lexicographers when it chose to denote Mrs. Mary Norton as chairlady [TIME, Aug. 7]. Offhand it is my impression that chairman is a title applicable to members of both sexes.

JAMES J. EGAN Saranac Lake, N. Y.

¶ Reader Egan is quite right: “chairman” is applicable to either sex. That is why TIME used “chairlady,” which is not.—ED.

Hungry Hungarians


It was worth while to learn the English language, to enjoy in this cursed part of the world the very interesting contents of your recent article (TiME, July 24) about Mussolini & Family. Too bad that our press is forbidden to publish such articles—let me say facts—about “prominent” people; their only task is to lessen the strength of the democracies in the eyes of the masses, and to increase the prestige of the “Axis.”

Believe me, nowadays we are (the few Hungarians who are lucky enough to know your beautiful language) hungry to read articles like the one mentioned above, and if we get a fresh copy of your magazine, the first thing is to turn the pages till we come to Foreign News.

Many thanks in the name of peace-loving real Hungarians—to whom I always translate the News published in your very valuable . . . way.

H. T. B. Budapest, Hungary

English Meets Greek


Smug males like he of the horsy name, Andrew McWhiney (TiME, Aug. 14), annoy me tremendously. I don’t care particularly about Edda Ciano, but I do resent his oblique inference that all women are congenital nitwits and as such, should be consigned to home and the kiddies.

Mr. McWhiney is definitely the superior sort of male who regards all women as merely biological instruments. He is the type, too, who is apt to dismiss with a pitying smile, the idea that women may be vitally interested in such serious subjects as politics, finance, international affairs, etc.

Quite frequently we have something other than a permanent under our hats.

It isn’t necessary to go to the Greeks for a word for Mr. McWhiney. I can think of several juicy English ones.

(Miss) LENORA WHITMAN Chicago, Ill.



Your excellent account of Heidelberg’s Reich Festival (TiME, Aug 14, p. 41) places

. . . Heidelberg squarely on the shores of the mighty Rhine.

If there has been a new kind of Anschluss let’s hear about it.

H. G. RUNKEN Dallas, Tex.

TIME erred in geographical detail. Heidelberg Castle looks down on the Rhine valley from its hill above the little tributary Neckar.—ED.

Revival Vote


Mark my vote for continuing the “Current & Choice” item in your Cinema Department. Reference to this feature has saved me many a time from the 20th Century form of Spanish Inquisition known as sitting four hours in a theatre in vain expectation of entertainment.

LORING FISKE Glencoe, Ill.


A horizontal head shake … for suggested revival of your “Current & Choice” list of movies [TIME, Aug. 7].

F. LANDER MOORMAN Captiva Island, Fla.

¶ Total vote to date: 489 vertical head shakes to Reader Moorman’s and one other horizontal. Current & Choice will appear again in TIME, Sept. 4.—ED.

Eye Opener


. . . Herschel Grynszpan murdered a German [TIME, Nov. 21]. What ever became of Herschel? Was he tried, imprisoned, executed or what? I’d like to know.

ROBERT WAYNE Charleroi, Pa.

¶ Imprisoned Herschel Grynszpan is still awaiting trial. Meanwhile German newspaper correspondents have been told by their Government just how to report the trial: “Everything must be done to open the eyes of the French public to the fact that Jewry was behind this crime.”—ED.

Lion v. Mule


Your comparison of Winston Churchill to Garner was certainly lacking in imagination [TIME, Aug. 14]. They are about as much alike politically or otherwise as a Lion and a Mule. By standards of culture, background and accomplishment, Churchill is a “Silk Purse” and Garner a “Sow’s Ear.”

In political measure Garner is a good-natured loblolling cowhand who, through the political hocus-pocus that nowadays passes for government, has been drawing his breath, cigar and salary for seven years, and saying nothing, because he knows nothing, while twelve million people have had the opportunity, on relief, to become inured to the blessings of government by “the common people.”

By comparison, Winston Churchill is a political giant among giants, one of the several world statesmen, upon whose shoulders might fall the task of saving not only their own democracy, but ours too.

Churchill and Garner are alike as a blade of grass is like an oak, as a stream is like the ocean, as a pebble is like a mountain, and as a pin is like the Washington Monument. In about these proportions.

W. E. HAMILTON Evanston, Ill.

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com