"Incomplete"

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.

Sirs:

I am pleased to inclose my renewal for TIME. I have enjoyed reading the issues that I have received very much and have just this one criticism to make. You evidently invite and look for letters from your readers. So far the general trend of your editorial replies to them has been sarcastic and not-to-the-point and incomplete, such as, for instance, your treat-ment of the replies calling your attention to the fact that you had used the incorrect name in dealing with a former Supreme Court Justice as to his being a Roman Catholic or not. I think every bit as much publicity should be given to your corrections and replies as to your original articles.

T. B. McCOUN Lexington, Ky.

The editors have never mtention-tionally given utterance to "sarcastic and not-to-the-point and incomplete" replies. Are other subscribers of the same mind as Mr. McCoun?--ED.

Wales Flayed

Sirs: I wish to protest and protest strongly against such antics on the part of the Prince of Wales as you describe in your issue of Nov. 2. No decent young man dresses himself up in girl's clothes and appears in a farce called The Bathroom Door. There are enough scatter-brained girls who call themselves " vamps" without the Prince making a "Royal Vamp" of himself. I visited England last year and want to say that a great many people in London know him for what he is. Too many Americans think he is a sweet, babyfaced, "innocent," "embarrassed" young man ! That is perfect nonsense, and anyone with half an eye should know it. I only hope this incident will open people's eyes in this country. In England everyone knows the truth.

MARY ELIZABETIH ROBBIN Boston, Mass.

Frick's Complaint

Sirs:

I am a regular newsstand reader of TIME for the excellent reason that I like to buy it down town and read it on my way home from business. I resent your advertisement on p. 36 of the Nov. 1 issue, in which you offer for sale to the highest bidder several original cover drawings of TIME, but add, "nonsubscribers need not apply." Why this discrimination?

I admire the work on your covers by such nationally known artists as Gordon Stevenson and S. J. Woolf, and always look forward eagerly to see what new face is to greet me from the newsstand. Is it not sufficient that I actually pay you more, buying TIME copy by copy, than if I subscribed? Should I not be entitled to the "right" possessed by the subscribers who pay you less?

I write you this letter calmly, not happen to be interested in any of the five men whose pictures by Artist Woolf you offer for sale in this outrageously restricted manner. But I do have my eye on the extremely spirited sketch of Otto H. Kahn, by Artist Stevenson, which appears on the cover of your Nov. 2 issue. Is it to be "offered" also ?

I am a music loving man, and I would like to bid on so excellent a likeness of the greatest of contemporary musical financiers. I shall expect you, if you do offer this sketch for sale, to respect the "vested rights" of a "regular buyer," which my newsdealer will readily attest that I am.

MARTIN S. FRICK New York, N. Y.

No, Newsstand Buyer Frick's bid for the Otto H. Kahn cannot be accepted. TIME'S "discriminating" rule was concocted by a shrewd business manager who intended rather to cause regular subscribers to congratulate one another than to bring unhappiness to newsstand customers. Possibly Mr. Frick knows a subscriber-friend who will make for him the purchase.--ED.

Critique

Sirs:

Have just received circular letter from your Circulation Manager, and as I happen to have a little leisure today I am offering you some gratuitous criticism in the interest of good journalism.

The theory of TIME as expressed by advertisements is attractive to thinking people--the facts of current history in condensed form without bias and without admixture of opinion and propaganda--but I do not find from reading a trial subscription that TIME fulfills the promise of its advertisements.

As for bias, no human being is without it, and the bias of TIME is to be inferred from the associations of its owners as well as its choice and treatment of news matter. The only assurance of a minimum of bias is in the editorial control of a superior judicial mind animated with zeal for ideals set forth by your advertisements.

My objection to the daily newspaper is that it is too great a strain on the eyes, and consumes too much time and attention to pore through its endless columns to extract a grain of wheat from mountains of chaff. But TIME does not exhibit a greater discrimination between essential and nonessential facts. Facts that vitally affect the progress of human affairs throughout the world, facts of business and industry, of scientific discovery and achievement, of race and political and religious belief, are half glimpsed or wholly ignored or suppressed.

Nor does TIME inspire one with belief in its conscientious endeavor to be accurate. Any watchful reader will note from time to time instances that seem to indicate an indifference to accuracy. For example, there appears to have been no evidence whatever that Peter Veregin, leader of the Doukhobors, was assassinated; probably instead he was the victim of an accidental explosion.

In general, the impression I have received is that TIME is lacking in any superior editorial ability and in any conscientious devotion to its ideals as expressed in ads: that it shows immaturity and reliance on the usual high pressure salesmanship and advertising to put it over. I will see TIME occasionally and if it shows any progress toward realization of its expressed ideal, I will know about it without the assistance of a Circulation Manager or a two page ad in the Saturday Evening Post.

W. W. RUSH

Stewart, B. C.

Criticism

Sirs:

I have your card for the renewal of my subscription, and before sending it in I desire to express myself on one point which may seem trifling to you, but which is to me a constant source of irritation ; and that is your English.

I am so tired of reading "came the President," "walked the ambassador," "sneezed the violent Senator from Oklahoma," and so on, that I almost hesitate to renew the subscription.

I do not know what your policy is, nor why you use this form of English, but it certainly seems to me a most irritating and unpleasant one; nor am I alone in my criticism, for many people have expressed the same irritation.

ALICE FOOTE MACDOUGALL

New York, N. Y.

Miscarriage

Sirs:

I am not writing to you in order that I may see my name in print and so satisfy a seemingly overweening desire for publicity. I am not going to tell you that you have spelled someone's name incorrectly ; that in so-and-so line on such-and-such page a typographical error occurs; nor shall I take you to task for inadvertently or intentionally slandering some race or creed; furthermore, I shall not take this opportunity to announce ta you dramatically that from this time and henceforth you shall be denied the great privilege of mailing to me each week your valueless publication.

I am merely writing to ask you if you can furnish me with the Oct. 5 issue of your magazine. For some reason it did not reach me--no doubt due to miscarriage 'of the mails. I have been a subscriber to TIME for two years or more and do not like to miss even one issue.

A. W. PRIEST

YENeedersburg, Ind.

Anti-Lodge

Sirs:

In your issue of Nov. 2, you published an article, under the caption "Posthumous," on p. 11, col. 1. It refers to the late Senator Lodge's book and his opinion of our late President. ... I feel like every true lover of Woodrow Wilson should protest the publishing of such a book. . . . And I don't hesitate to say that I don't give a snap of my fingers for Mr. Lodge's opinion of President Wilson.

I know him (Wilson) to be the greatest, best and most unselfish man that ever lived. . . . He never once gave a thought of himself all through his administration. . . . He was fighting for the honor of the American nation, for that was the first time in the history of our nation that the Senate had failed to uphold the honor. . . .

And that the Senate has done such a thing will ever be the blackest blot our great nation has ever known. And what is still a greater sin is that any man would try to hide and excuse his own mistakes by laying them at the door of another man. . . . But both have gone before a higher Judge than man and each will receive his just dues. And I am in hopes Mr. Lodge repented his harsh views before he was called to meet his God. For otherwise I fear that his chances of happiness will be very slim. For our Saviour condemns every strife, malice, backbiting, selfishness and all manner of evil. And our late President was as free from those vices as mortal man could be. . . I know that his crown will be filled with stars . . . His every thought was for his country and people and what did America give him in return for all his self sacrifice? She turned on him and tried to rend him, even of his honor . . . through her hatred of the greatest man and President America ever knew.

Miss EMMA BROWN

Arlington, Tex.