Herewith are excerpts from letters come to the desks of the editors during the past week. They are selected primarily for the information they contain, either supplementary to, or corrective of, news previously published in TIME.
From the Virgin Islands
TIME St. Thomas
New York, N.Y. Virgin Islands,
Gentlemen: Mar. 23, 1925
Does your correspondent, Oliver Kecthtson, know anything about Fatty Arbuckle that causes him, in your issue of Mar. 9, P. 27, to sneer at the mention of his marriage as a news item? If he feels that all mention of that unfortunate victim of a series of circumstances over which he had absolutely no control, should damn a man who, previously to his persecution in San Francisco, made the cleanest pictures the screen ever displayed, he should have had my privilege, that of having him, as I did, as a guest of the hotel (The Plaza in San Francisco) of which I was one of the associated managers during his three trials, and the gentleman would not be so ready with his slurs.
I not only enjoyed his friendship but followed his trials day by day, and not one scintilla of evidence was introduced to show him guilty, a fact agreed upon by both District Attorney Brady and the judges before which he appeared.
JOSEPH REYNOLDS.
Flattery?
TIME New York, N.Y.
New York, N.Y. Apr. 11, 1925
Gentlemen:
When an error is made in a publication, I know that the editor likes to know about it.
I wish you would note the photograph in your Apr. 13 issue, Page 2, which you have labeled John Van A. MacMurray, as Minister to China. This photograph happens to be of a Mr. Miller who, at one time, was one of the Assistant Secretaries of State.
As a brother-in-law of said MacMurray, I am forced to say that I think the picture of Mr. Miller flatters MacMurray. Nevertheless, if you are going to try to give the great American public an idea of what a man's face looks like, I hardly think it is fair to cheat even in his favor.
. . . E. KENDALL GILLETT.
The picture of Mr. Miller was furnished to TIME on request by a reputable concern which makes a business of furnishing such pictures. Above appears a picture of Mr. MacMurray in person.--ED.
Reply
TIME Girard, Kan.
New York, N.Y. Apr. 10, 1925
Gentlemen:
Let me thank you for this fair opportunity to answer the letter of the Reverend Hugh Lavery (in your Apr. 13 issue, Page 31), whose attitude I shall not describe as unreverend nor ungentlemanly. ....
Rev Lavery conveys a false impression when he says "14 of the first 21 books are sex books." ' One who reads as carelessly as Rev. Lavery writes may assume that two-thirds of our books deal with sex -- or the scandalous subjects of "morality" and "women." The fact is we publish a list of 750 books-- an extensive and varied list.
One who cries out today against sex books reveals himself as a strangler in the march of progress, who is manifetly far behind the best, enlightened thought and knowledge of the age. Sex is no longer a dark forbidden subject-- hidden, yet finding its way surreptiously and smuttily into every talk and revenging itself by tragedies of ignorance.
When Rev. Lavery refers to the Little Blue Books as being "foul propoganda. . . attacking Christianity, morality and our form of Government," he is wildly rhetorical. The books fairly represent a variety of taste and opinion: they are chosen in a spirit of freedom and toleration, which, of course, means that not all of them reflect viewpoints, artistic or philisophical or social, which would be agreeable to Rev. lavery. The list has no propoganda purpose. "foul" or otherwise, such as he recklessly implies. . . .
I must, however, firmly correct the statement that the Little Blue Books (the "good" ones) are worthless or trifling condensations. There are exactly 16 books that are condensations of larger works: they have been carefully prepared for the purpose of the Little Blue Books. . . .
Rev. Lavery's reference to the Haldeman-Julius Weekly (not a biweekly) is very uninformed and misleading. According to the postal regulations, a newspaper may distribute sample copies to the number of 10% of its paid subscription list. We use this privilege, which is a legitimate and not an "underhand" method of getting new readers. . . .
E. HALDEMAN-JULIUS.
From Malaysia
TIME Ipoh, Federated Malay States
New York, N.Y. Mar. 2, 1925
Gentlemen:
On our World Tour, TIME is the only paper or magazine which we are having forwarded from the U. S. A. Each copy is a joy and keeps us advised of the happenings in Amer ica, some 13 or 14 thousands of miles away. A subscription to your truly wonderful paper was given us when we left New York last October, and from now on we will continue to be numbered among your many readers. It may interest you to know that I showed a copy of TIME to Sir William Sowden, one of Australia's prominent citizens who has been to the U. S. several times. He was so much pleased that he said he was going to send you his subscription. . . . This is the first letter of this kind I have ever written to any periodical, but feel it is due you. . . .
HOLMES FORSYTH.
Sir William John Sowden is editor of The Register, The Observer, The Evenina Journal of Victoria, Australia. --ED.
Competent Observers
TIME Chicago, Ill.
New York, N.Y. Apr. 8, 1925
Gentlemen:
I wish to call your attention to your issue of Apr. 16 and particularly to an article under the heading of LATIN AMERICA, on Page 11. In the first paragraph of this article, you make a statement which is absolutely untrue as far as the United States is concerned. The labor section in this country is by no means solidly in favor of nationalization of the railways, and competent observers are of the opinion that this movement does not even have a majority of the workers. . . .
F.N. BARD.
TIME's statement was : "In the U. S., Britain and some other countries, the labor section of the community is almost solidly in favor of nationalization of the railways." It has never been possible to analyze scientifically the "labor vote" in the U. S.
Original Subscriber Bard, President of a concern which manufactures rail-road "specialties," knows, presumably, whereof he speaks.--ED.
Counter-criticism
TIME Rochester. N.Y.
New York, N.Y. Apr. 6, 1925
Gentlemen:
My indignation was most thoroughly aroused by the two objections raised in the letter of Jessie Stillman Taylor, printed in your issue of Apr. 6. As to your habit of inverting verbs, it seems to be much in keeping with the general tenor of your magazine ...
With regard to royalty and all news in this line, I have only to ask why a normal interest in personages who head the various European aristocracies should be considered cheap.
ELIZABETH ALWYN CORTLAND.