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.
Wales Praised
Sirs:
I have just arrived from England and happened to see in your edition of Nov. 16 the letter about the Prince of Wales. Why should Mary Elizabeth Robinn object to the Prince dressing up as a girl in The Bathroom Door? Young college men the world over do the same thing and the play is perfectly harmless; so why should anyone object? As for saying that England knows him for what he is--yes, they do. They know him as the greatest ambassador England ever had--and the most popular Prince--and don't expect him to be an Angel from Heaven! He works harder than most people suppose; why shouldn't he play sometimes ?
I can only think that the English who ran their Prince down to an American were sadly lacking in loyalty. They are probably in the pay of the Reds! I should be grateful for an answer to this question., so that when I return to England I can tell my friends: Why an American woman should concern herself with the behavior of the heir to the British Throne?
I feel sure that the one person who would be most amused at Mary Elizabeth Robinn's letter would be the Prince himself! He is such a wonderful sport and can afford to laugh !
"A VISITOR FROM ENGLAND"
Detroit, Mich.
Let Subscriber Mary Elizabeth Robinn answer.--ED.
Zero
Sirs: We regret that we cannot, in the interest of sound journalism, subscribe to or recommend TIME for subscription.
The early editions promised much but soon the tone dropped--for us to absolute zero.
We are intensely interested in getting honest journals before the people-- journals as different in appeal as the Nation and Collier's, but we must (as nominal Christians, which we have the fortune or misfortune to be) set for ourselves some ethics.
Two years ago sensation articles began to appear in your journal. Later came an outrageous attack upon the priests' convention (the Anglo-Catholic Congress) at Philadelphia. The articles were absurd, silly and malicious; they stopped short of libel.
How can we then, as Christian teachers, subscribe to your journal or recommend it for subscription? Perhaps you may be able to educate us; we have done our best lo block subscription to TIME because of bur belief that it misrepresents and perverts the news.
JOHN A. TOTMAN NORMAN P. DARE
Middletown, Conn.
TIME made no "attack" upon the priests' convention. To substantiate this statement, see the issue dated May 12, 1924.--ED.
Big Mouth Cave
Sirs:
In the Science section of TIME, Nov. 16, I note several mentions of archeological excavations conducted in different places over the United States, but neither in this number nor in any previous number that I have received have I ever found mention of the extensive archeological excavations conducted by the Oklahoma State Historical Society in Delaware County, Okla.
This society, under the direction of its secretary, Joseph B. Thoburn, exploring Big Mouth Cave, discovered a large number of bone tools and implements such as needles, awls, fishhooks, etc., as well as a number of articles made of stone. In some mounds excavated by the same party a number of pieces of pottery were found together with stone pipes, ear plugs that show evidence of having been covered with copper, and several copper ornaments. Is this not worthy of mention ?
GUY R. MOORE
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Pittsburgh's Eleven
Sirs:
I notice with considerable disgust that in your football discussions in TIME for Nov. 16 you state that "a blocked kick in the last quarter gave Pittsburgh's sloppy team a victory after it had been badly outplayed all afternoon by Washington and Jefferson." Such a view scarcely coincides with my view of the affair. . . .
That the day's work was of no fluke origin it might be noted that the next week the University of Pittsburgh sadly humiliated Old Penn, conquerors of Yale and of a host of other football aggregations of more than passing merit. . . .
Why affront the people of Pittsburgh with such unsightly aspersions as you cast on the Pitt Panthers after such noted and praiseworthy accomplishments ? We of the Pittsburgh district like our Pirates, our Panthers and our pugilists--point with pride to their accomplishments in the realm of sport, and distinctly view with alarm any attempt on TIME'S part to minimize Pitt's position in the football world.
JOHN S. CRAMER
Burgettstown, Pa.
Portland's Bank
Sirs:
In your issue of Nov. 2, p. 36, cols. 2 and 3, you quoted from the report of the Comptroller of the Currency as to national banks throughout the United States having deposits of fifty millions or more, but your report is in error in one respect at least: you mention the cities in which there is one or more national banks having deposits of fifty millions or more, but you do not mention the city of Portland, Ore. The writer is a director of The United States National Bank of Portland (Ore), which you will see from the inclosed condition statement of Sept. 28, 1925 (which is the date referred to in your article, being the date of the last call for statements by the Comptroller), had deposits of $55,775,018.78, and therefore this city was entitled to be placed in your 50-million-deposit class.
We are quite proud of the premier position of this bank, as it is the only bank north of San Francisco and west of Minneapolis which has deposits in excess of 50 million dollars.
ROBERT TREAT PLATT
Portland, Ore.
Miami's Banks
Sirs:
Either a "drowsy reviewer" glanced over the bank deposit statistics as issued recently by the Comptroller of Currency or the Government gentleman forgot to include Miami in his report, which is quoted in your BUSINESS & FINANCE section in your issue of Nov. 2.
In the list given in your article "Deposits" (p. 36), Miami, Fla., is omitted as one of the cities supporting a bank with over 50 millions in deposits. The First National Bank of Miami reported deposits to be over 63 millions Sept. 28 last. In addition to this, the Bank of Bay Biscayne (a national bank) and the Miami Bank & Trust Co. each reported to the Florida State Comptroller deposits to be over 59 millions and 53 millions respectively.
In all, Miami banks reported a total of slightly over 200 millions on deposit, an increase of 440% above the corresponding quarterly report in 1924.
I am certain of my facts herein since it has been my special job to keep close account of financial affairs in the Miami district--even down to the "personnel"-- for the Miami Herald. R. B. McCAIN
Miami, Fla.
"Sword of Truth"
Sirs:
As an Original Subscriber to TIME, I feel that I can answer your query to Mr. McCoun's statement that your editorial replies to letters have been "sarcastic and not-to-the-point, and incomplete."
On the contrary, I find myself satisfied with your replies, as I do with most of the entire magazine. Your replies are tolerant, full of the human touch, accurate so far as I am able to judge, and the thrift of language used is a revelation to our redundant age. Once I was editor of a college paper. The urge of responsibility is still in me to say of your paper that I wish it were longer in many interesting articles; profounder in its criticism of art, with more of it; deeper and wider in its appraisement of the religious news of the week; and more than anything else, I wish you could add a column on philosophy-- about our professors in the universities, what they teach, advocate in ethics, think of God, the universe, economics and the like.
For TIME as a publisher of news I have respect and admiration. For TIME, as a part of the "two-edged sword" of truth I have much hope.
W. M. SEEL
Port Kennedy, Pa.
McCoun Flayed
Sirs:
I disagree with Mr. McCoun (Nov. 16 issue). I read the LETTERS regularly as entertaining human documents. In my judgment your replies are models of courteous and concise finality. I like the frankness with which you admit error or indiscretion and your willingness to make all reasonable amends. Your score of blunders surely is not a high one, especially when one considers the nature of your undertaking.
EDWARD F. HAUCH
Clinton, N. Y.
Priests Flayed
Sirs:
I learn from the letter of a clergyman, published in your issue of Nov. 9, that a certain church therein named refuses "Christian burial" to "unbaptized adults."
Clergymen are, of course, within their legal rights in refusing to officiate at the funeral of the unbaptized, but that is the best that can be said of them in case of such refusal. It may cheer their hearts to learn that "Christian burial" is no more necessary to happiness in the future life than is baptism itself, which reason refuses to regard as a sine qua non to a future state of bliss.
Jesus did not ask the penitent thief whether he had been baptized before promising him admission to Paradise.
When one thinks of the myriad thousands of noble men and women who have died unbaptized, and reflects on the unkindly creed that would for that reason alone, consign them to an endless hell, the words of Laertes come forcibly to mind:
I tell thee, churlish priest, A ministring angel shall my sister be
When thou liest howling!
G. P. HURST
Woodland, Calif.