Letters

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. Philadelphia

Sirs:

I found with interest, in TIME, April 19, a review of William C. Bullitt's novel It's Not Done. Upon reading it, I discovered to my great surprise that whoever had written your review had entirely missed the very important point that this novel was laid in Philadelphia and not "in old New England." It is extremely odd that your book reviewer should have overlooked this, as the young whippersnapper of an author took no pains to conceal it, in what I consider a very impertinent, if not indecent, book! Perhaps your reviewer is among those who do not take the trouble to read the books that they review.

MARIE C. PAINTER Philadelphia, Pa.

TIME'S reviewer vows that he read It's Not Done from cover to cover at one uninterrupted sitting. Subscriber Painter's contention that "Chesterbridge" means Philadelphia is sound. Who can the hoary poet "Walt" be, across the river from Chesterbridge, but Walt Whitman, who lived in Camden, across the Delaware from Philadelphia, during his last years?

In 1744

Sirs:

Speaking of the coming International Congress of Philosophy (TIME, April 5, p. 22) you say, "The formal host of the Congress is the American Philosophical Society." You have made a pardonable confusion between the American Philosophical Society and the American Philosophical Association. The former was founded by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia in 1744. In that age, a "philosophical" society was one devoted to all the special sciences, including the mathematical, the physical and the biological. The Society founded by Franklin still covers this wide field, and still meets in Philadelphia. The American Philosophical Association, on the other hand, is our national organization of philosophers in the sense in which that term is used today. It meets in various cities throughout the United States, and restricts its discussions to philosophy proper. It will act as host to the International Congress of Philosophy, the scope of which is indicated by its four Divisions, devoted respectively to metaphysics, logic, theory of values (ethics, social philosophy, esthetics) and history of philosophy.

WALLACE CRAIG Boston, Mass.

Wood

Sirs:

I wonder whether you intended to color your reference this week to "snubs" of General Wood by President Wilson with bias? Wilson had pretty good reasons for most of his appointments, and generally speaking he was intent on doing good. His prosecution of the War was hampered, as was Lincoln's, by smaller persons who wished to get the job under the control of the right political party. Although many Republicans worked hard and earnestly for victory under Wilson's leadership, some proposed a War Board, made up of Republicans, to take over the duties of the President and thus get the job done right, and chief among these was Roosevelt, and close to Roosevelt was General Wood.

Wilson's choice of a Commanding General was a fine one. Wilson's war operations surpassed on both land and sea anything that the world had thus far seen, not excepting those of Germany itself. Wilson was a man of peace, hated war. He did almost too well. They had not beaten him with the preparedness issue; the country was not prepared when the Republicans had turned it over to him; so they tried to make his decisions for him. He, declining the honor, is accused of snubbing! An unkind joke.

ARTHUR B. GREEN Middletown, Ohio.

In choosing General Pershing for Commander of the A. E. F., President Wilson chose well; few, if any, dispute that. And few dispute that the President's refusal to send General Wood to France even in command of a division, was, from General Wood's point of view, a snub. The snub may have been justified by the exigencies of the situation; that is a matter of opinion.--ED.

Sirs:

I would like to see a correction made in a statement in TIME [April 19, p. 7] concerning General Wood. He was not born in "a small Massachusetts seacoast town" but in Winchester, N. H. TIME is a very valuable paper and I hope it will maintain a high standard of accuracy.

GLEN C. NAROMORE Worcester, Mass.

Mr. Naromore is correct. Although General Wood's boyhood was spent in "a small Massachusetts seacoast town," he was bom in New Hampshire.--ED.

Sirs:

You are the sentinel that sleepeth not. Without you we should now and then be forgetting such great men as Leonard Wood, who serve our country but have no time to trumpet themselves. Hurrah for the full page you gave to Leonard (TIME, April 19) ! . . .

THOMAS SHERWIN Philadelphia, Pa.

Sneer

Sirs:

I can stand anything but a sneer. A sneer gets my goat. But you pretty often sneer, at least I think you do; but maybe it is unintentional, so I write to ask.

In your April 12 issue, p. 14, you tell about an "infuscate U. S. sailor." Now is that a sneer or not? It seems a funny way to express that the sailor was drunk. I think you ought to respect the U. S. Navy and not use a sneer. "Tight," or "squiffed," or "boiled" or maybe "groggy" would have meant the same and not sounded so sneering.

RUPERT J. SMITH

Seattle, Wash.

Let Subscriber Smith consult his Webster's Unabridged. "Infuscate" means "darkened with a brownish tinge"; was employed as a synonym for "nigger," "Negro," "blackamoor"; has no reference to intoxication.--ED.

Hungry

Sirs: Your musical reviewer does keep an exile hungry and longing for real music again--for instance! Not that the city of angels [Los Angeles] lacks an orchestra; they have one, but it is managed by a mechanic who batons his men through great music as though he were late for dinner and his wife would scold. God only knows what he did with Beethoven's Ninth last week. Put it through inside 70 minutes, I suppose! Yes, you can imagine what your little TIME means to me. Would there were more of it and may it reach around the world!

DORA INGRAM Culver City, Calif.

Addison's "Spectator"

Sirs:

As I see it, your periodical is far above the mental standard of that well known person, "the average American." Your witticisms, your skillful use of the English language, the brilliant literary style of your periodical--which as a news publication will probably attain in years to come as great a renown as Addison's "Spectator"--seem to be sadly misunderstood by a large proportion of your readers. Also, and what is more to be deplored, this attitude on the part of an uncultured list of subscribers seems to have reacted on you to the point of lowering the literary standard of the paper. May I not ask you, in the name of excellence of language, to go on with your publication, maintaining the same standard with which it started, even if all the babbitts would have it otherwise?

G. NAVARRO FUENTES San Juan, P. R.

TIME, hearkening to Subscriber Fuentes, will guard itself against a great fall, since it is unlikely that all the babbitts could put it together again.--ED.