Like Hoover
Sirs:
. . . Your elucidation of Hoover and "Hooverism" [TIME, March 26] was the clearest thing we have had yet. We recently had a city election in Seattle. A successful business man, unknown in politics, opposed by every newspaper and every political agency in the city, won out by the most sweeping majority in the history of Seattle. Like Hoover, he was a "rotten" talker; knew nothing about politics, but the people were willing to judge him by his accomplishments and looked with scorn upon the scathing efforts of the political agencies that sought his defeat. . . .
As the national election approaches, it might be well for us to don our gas masks and read TIME. And by the way, TIME, within twenty years, Seattle will be the largest city in the United States. Put a check mark after that statement.
R. B. HOYT
Seattle, Wash.
No Dealer
Sirs:
In your otherwise admirable write-up of Hoover as the "The Beaver Man" in March 26 issue, there is, I believe, one startling misstatement. You say, "He is a very, very bad public speaker."
Now I have a more than passing acquaintance, both with public speaking in general and with Hoover's public speaking in particular, and, although it is true that the Secretary of Commerce is no spellbinder, no dealer in mellifluous mouthing, he is nonetheless a straightforward, direct, matter-of-fact speaker, who never talks unless he has something to say and who, when he has, says it in language that no one can fail to understand. His delivery and voice have both improved in recent years and still leave much to be desired. They are certainly far from being so poor, however, as to justify your superlative "very, very bad."
FRANCIS A. THOMSON
Dean, School of Mines
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
Burst
Sirs:
. . . Senator Heflin "makes" almost every issue of your magazine, and in every issue his name is invariably written with the phrase ". . . who mortally hates and fears the Roman Pope." Sometimes you do it twice or thrice in a single issue. If I see it again, I'll scream. No one hates the Roman Pope more than I do, but this constant repetition is getting nerve-wrecking. If you must explain this not wholly unique hobby of Senator Heflin's, whenever you write his name, for God's sake sit down and compose fifty or more variations of the phrase ". . . who mortally (I can't bear to write it) . . ." and then schedule them for successive mentions of Heflin's name.
Now that I've said what I have, I feel like apologizing for making such a big splash about such a little thing, but I hope to be helpful to TIME, as well as to myself in letting out this criticism before it became so inflated in me that I blew up and burst. Thank you for your indulgence.
R. W. GRAHAM
Philadelphia, Pa.
Because Dawes
Sirs:
There is no charge for this. If you care to reprint it you have my permission to do so. I am sure the American people believe in fair play.
This is what really happened on the Eighteenth of April, in 1775:
THE LONG NIGHT RIDE OF WILLIAM DAWES
by John C. Wright
There isn't a question but Longfellow's pen
Created a classical masterpiece when
He gave us the poem so pleasing to hear
Of the famous achievement of Paul Revere;
And yet it's a target for critics because
He never made mention of William Dawes,
Who started from Boston an hour before
And outrode the other by two miles or more.
Dawes didn't have signals to give him a start--
The Patriot Warren just bade him depart;
But not by mere chance was he chosen to go--
He excelled as a horseman, and the Chronicles show
He pummelled a Briton for slurring his bride
So Warren knew Dawes was a man for the ride.
From the start of his journey jar into the morn
He rode like a wraith for the nation newborn;
He wakened the people and covered the ground.
And his horse on the roadway made just as much sound
As the man's who rode bravely by Middlesex farm . . .
Note: Dawes left Boston through Boston Neck, on the South; Revere rode from the North. Both were headed for Concord, where the American supplies were stored. Neither reached that objective. They were intercepted by British patrols at Lexington. However, they gave the alarm that was to arouse the world, to Samuel Prescott, a young doctor, who carried it on to Concord.--From Chronicles of the time.
JOHN C. WRIGHT
Lansing, Mich.
Glorious Thought
Sirs:
I thrill--I positively thrill at the suggestion of Subscriber Sidney Henderson (TIME, April 9) that President Coolidge should fly with Charles Augustus Lindbergh!
What a glorious thought! Our great-souled President aloft in space with the Lone Eagle. . . .
Of course he should do it--he must! If other TIME readers will join me I will undertake to start a petition--signed by women only--which would eventually be presented to Mrs. Coolidge, asking her to ask the President to fly with Lindbergh.
I think that such a method would be approved by everyone, even by those who believe that a man has no right to fly without the consent of his wife.
MRS. ROY L. FILLMORE
New York, N. Y.
Sirs:
. . . "Coolidge & Lindbergh" appeared on p. 2, TIME, April 9.
The signer, Sidney Henderson, has evidently forgotten that Mr. Roosevelt refused to ride in an automobile when they first came out and said he felt much safer riding behind horses. As nearly as I can remember he did not make use of an automobile until after the Spanish American War.
ELLA FORBES
Chicago, Ill.
Mr. Roosevelt rode in a U. S. automobile in 1900; he was sufficiently courageous.--ED.
Sirs:
Just because Sidney Henderson [TIME, April 9] is all up in the air about aviation is no reason President Coolidge should go up in the air, too. If I read vox populus aright, Mr. Coolidge would not make himself popular by flying, with Lindbergh or anyone else. He would have to put on a flying suit, you know, and just remember how people talked when he tried to be friendly to the West and wore a cowboy suit. Those brown overalls that aviators wear are the most humiliating clothes in the world, unless you happen to be an airman yourself. Imagine having to dress up as a sailor to ride on a steamship or as an engineer to ride in a railroad train. When aviation gets to the point where we can step into planes the way we do into trolley cars and subways, then it will be time enough for the President of the United States of America to go flying. Then he can leave on his frock coat, silk hat and walking stick, in case he is really going somewhere which the President should be doing in an airplane rather than just performing a "stunt."
J. F. BASSETT
Boston, Mass.
Bromide & Bromidiom
Sirs:
May I suggest that TIME is in error on p. 40 of the issue of April 2. That page carries a footnote which opines "A bromide is any expression that has been used enough to become nauseating," following with examples. This is too important a matter for TIME to bungle. The bromide is the person using expressions of this nature. The expression itself is known as a bromidiom. The authority for this is Mr. G. Burgess, author of the brochure "Are You A Bromide?" wherein both expressions originally saw the light.
L. E. FIRTH
New York, N. Y.
Lobbyist
Sirs:
TIME published, in its issue of March 26, a very readable review of the circumstances affecting the resignation of Commissioner Costigan. No comment that I have read has been more intelligent or interesting.
There is one paragraph, however, that fails to show the discrimination revealed in the article as a whole. You say:
"Mr. Costigan began calling Mr. Marvin a 'lobbyist' when the latter was first appointed by President Harding. And Mr. Marvin was a lobbyist in Washington, for the wool trade. That is why President Harding appointed him."
It is quite well known that at the time of my appointment by President Harding I was secretary of the Home Market Club* and that I had advocated, for years, protection as the policy best suited to diversified industrial development in the United States. The advocacy of a national policy in The Protectionist, a magazine of which I was the editor, in the press, and in remarks before the Committee on Ways and Means in 1913, does not necessarily entitle a man to the designation of "lobbyist."
Lobbying is generally supposed to be an attempt to influence the votes of members of a legislative body. Broadly speaking, every magazine article dealing with a public question, every editorial, sermon, or speech that discusses a legislative measure and expresses views with respect to the principle involved in the proposed legislation or the method adopted to put the principle into effect, is an endeavor "to influence legislation." But the special work of a lobbyist is generally supposed to be to exert influence by secret methods and for special compensation. Apparently, you refer to this aspect of the matter when you say, "And Mr. Marvin was a lobbyist in Washington, for the wool trade." I have never been a "lobbyist" in Washington for the wool trade, or for any other trade, and have never received one dollar in compensation for representing any manufacturer or group of manufacturers in Washington or elsewhere. . . .
THOMAS O. MARVIN
United States Tariff Commission
Washington, D. C.
Misinformed as to the nature of the Home Market Club, TIME apologizes for identifying Mr. Marvin specially with the wool trade. As to his being a "lobbyist," Mr. Marvin and TIME are at one. TIME invariably applies the term "lobbyist" in the broad sense described by Mr. Marvin. TIME specifies, when necessary and pos sible, whether the "lobbying" was proper or improper. -- ED.
Thank You Sirs:
I wish to thank you for your summary of the work of the Seventieth Congress, TIME, March 19, under NATIONAL AFFAIRS.
H. P. HOWARD
Armour Chronicle,
Largest Circulation in Douglas County,
Eli Thomas, Prop.
Armour, S. Dak.
The Chronicle is very welcome.--ED.
"Ambassador"
Sirs:
. . . Soon he [Lindbergh] will again be winging his way into the far corners of this earth carrying with him all that America stands for--Youth, Courage, Freedom, Prosperity and Peace.
The people of all lands await his coming.
Would it not be fitting, therefore, as they gaze upon his approaching ship, that their eyes should catch a name [TIME, April 2] emblematical of his mission: AMBASSADOR. . . .
A. W. ASTLEY
Holyoke, Mass.
"Numbering the People"
Sirs:
The letter in TIME, March 26 purporting to be from C. L. Dean of Burlington, Iowa, caused me to inquire about him there to learn the reason for his bias against Christian Science. Careful inquiries at Burlington have failed to find any C. L. Dean.* Apparently, therefore, the writer of the letter in question shrank behind an assumed name or place. His letter, however, indexed him to a certain extent by evincing heated intolerance for Christian Scientists because we choose to depend on spiritual law, power, and practice for prevention or relief from disease. Therefore, I maintain that his intolerance is at least less creditable than our preference.
When Mrs. Eddy said, in 1883, that a million people then acknowledged and attested the blessings of Christian Science, she did not allude to the number of persons who had become members of the Church of Christ, Scientist; she rejoiced in the number of persons who had experienced or witnessed the benefits of Christian Science healing. In this denomination, the members constitute only a fraction of the number who are interested, and they constitute only a fraction of the number who have been healed or have observed the benefits of Christian Science healing. This is the case today, even though all of these numbers are much larger than they were in 1883.
Incidentally, I offer the information that Christian Scientists are not disposed to attach much importance to the matter of numbers. Thus, the following is part of a By-Law proposed by Mrs. Eddy and adopted for the Christian Science Mother Church: "According to the Scripture they (Christian Scientists) shall turn away from personality and numbering the people" (Church Manual, Article VIII, Section 28). Christian Scientists, therefore, attach much more importance to qualities of thought than to numbers or statistics.
CLIFFORD P. SMITH
Committee on Publication
The First Church of Christ, Scientist,
Boston, Mass.
* "A corporation, organized under the laws of Massachusetts, to promote the cause of protection to American industries and other sound ideas in political science. . . . An economic, not a political, organization . . . not interested in any special group of manufacturers"--(From a letter from Mr. Marvin to Senator Robinson of Arkansas, April 7, 1924).
* The address given was 126 Starr Avenue.--ED.