A Defense of Newberry
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.
TIME Detroit, Mich. New York, N. Y. June 5, 1925 Sirs: While I have never been a subscriber to your magazine, I have read it with interest from time to time. I know it has a number of great admirers in this vicinity. The late Dr. Burton, President of the University of reader." Michigan, in particular, was a "constant reader."
My attention has just been called to-your issue of May 25, Page 2, in which I find this sentence (speaking of Senator Spencer) : "The Nation remembered him as an irreconcilable opponent of Woodrow Wilson, as chief defender of Truman H. Newberry, who was eventually driven from the Senate, as a leading apologist for the Teapot Dome Lease." Without assuming to discuss with you whether or not this article is libelous, I challenge your attention to the fact that it is grossly inaccurate: in fact, it is absolutely untrue. I had the honor of representing Senator Newberry professionally at the Grand Rapids trial, before the Supreme Court and before the committee of the Senate. He was not "driven" from the Senate. On the contrary, the Senate voted that he was entitled to his seat. He resigned from the Senate about eight months after it had adjourned. I need not discuss with you or anyone else the occasion of his resignation. Only a moment's reflection as to the atmosphere with which he was surrounded there after the bitter attacks that had been made upon him will show you how unhappy the normal being would have been even though the Senate had voted he had a right to his seat. When you describe him as "a leading apologist for the Teapot Dome Lease," you are referring to a political episode that arose long: after he had ceased to have any connection with public life. In the interest of fair play, may I ask you to make a suitable correction at your earliest convenience to this grossly erroneous paragraph ? JAMES O. MURFIN. Everyone knows that Mr. Newberry resigned from the Senate. Instead of "driven," TIME should perhaps have used "driven to resign." The facts are as Mr. Murfin states them. Mr. Murfin all but says that Mr. Newberry was driven to resign by the atmosphere with which he was surrounded in the Senate. TIME did not refer to Mr. Newberry as an apologist for the Teapot Dome Lease. Senator Spencer, of course, was meant. "As an irreconcilable opponent ... as chief defender ... as a leading apologist"--all refer to "him," Senator Spencer, about whom the article as a whole was written.--ED.
Activities
TIME New York, N. Y. .Sirs: I wish to comment favorably on the activities of your circulation manager in undertaking to secure prompt delivery of your magazine. He has sent me a card with a schedule for receipts on it for the purpose of spotting delays. I also wish to commend your report of the Unitarian Centenary in the May 18 issue. Unitarians are usually knocked as highbrows --you spared them this and gave a good statement of how they regard themselves (Page 14, col. 3). May I add what Rev. Howard A. Pease of Fitchburg, Mass., considers an accurate expression of their position: "Every religion recognizes God's authority, but sects differ as to the way man receives it. The Catholics receive it through the priest; the Protestants, through the Bible; the Unitarians are unique in getting it direct through reason and conscience. They are their own arbiters of religious truth." CLARENCE JOYCE.
Axillary
TIME Bloomsburg, Pa. New York, N. Y. June 4, 1925. Sirs:
In your issue of June 1, under MEDICINE, Page 15, col. 1, headed "Outing," you have an account of one Prof. Worsham instructing the morticians to let blood, whenever possible, ''through the auxiliary artery." Is this the "newer" anatomy or a mistake of the typesetter? * The AXILLARY artery, reached through an incision in the armpit, is generally used by morticians when it is desirable to draw off some blood before embalming a dead body. Not a "kick," but TIME makes so few mistakes. Natural, of course, with the best weekly published. EARL J. DEANE.
Seniors
TIME O. D. Williamstown, KEEP. Mass. New York, N. Y. June 5, 1925. Sirs:
I am sure it will interest you to know that, in the Senior Class election at Williams Col lege just completed, the Seniors voted for their favorite magazines as follows:
Saturday Evening Post first; TIME and The Cosmopolitan tied for second. O.D. Keep.
Vigilant
TIME Clemson College, S. C. New York, N. Y. May 30, 1925 Sirs:
My consistent vigilance has at last been rewarded. Having eagerly perused the pages of TIME each week with the triple object of securing information, entertainment and detecting errors, it is with mingled feelings of satisfaction and consternation that I discovered the following in TIME, June 1, POLITICAL NOTES, Page 6 col. 3: Alabama, visiting Clemson College, Josephus Daniels . . . made comparisons ..." Clemson College is the Agricultural and Mechanical College of South Carolina, is located at Clemson College, S. C., on what was once the plantation of John C. Calhoun. The college this year had an enrollment of 1,639 students, including summer session. I am unable to learn if Josephus Daniels has visited on the campus since 1922, when he delivered the baccalaureate address. The full name of the junior Senator from South Carolina is Coleman Livingston Blease, not, as TIME puts it, Coleman E. Blease. E. G. PARKER.
Reply
TIME Tenafly, N. J. New York, N. Y. June 6, 1925 Sirs:
I notice in your issue of June 8, on an unnumbered page opposite to Page 28, a letter from a grandson and nephew of doctors who objects to your printing an article about an undertakers' meeting under the heading MEDICINE. It happens that my revered father, now dead for many years, was an undertaker. So perhaps I may be permitted to reply. In youth, I attended small business gatherings of undertakers with my father and never found anything to make my "gorge rise." Undertakers render a genuine and necessary service to society and they deserve all the more sympathy if that service is one which the average man finds unpleasant. They have every right to discuss the technique of their work and its improvement without arousing anger or scorn. I may add, also, for presumably it is not forbidden the son of an undertaker to have his lighter moments, that an undertaker is usually called upon after a doctor has failed in his work. Undertaking may not be a branch of Medicine, but at least it is a worthy and dignified occupation deserving no reproof. EWELL HOUND. TIME had no intention of promoting an interprofessional controversy in its columns and herewith terminates discussion of this mooted point. Henceforth, as heretofore, items about morticians will appear under the heading MEDICINE. -- ED.
*It was a mistake of the type-setter.--ED.