Holmes's Filched Table

Sirs:

Many thanks for the copy from TIME. I had already seen the notice but am glad to have another. Wonder where you dug up the portrait for the cut (TIME, May 22). There's a story there. The table is the original corner table of the Cafe de la Paix in Paris. I had been sitting at it, off & on, ever since 1886 and in 1931. during the Colonial Exposition, I "abducted" it as a souvenir and now I have my coffee at home--but "au Cafe de la Paix." The picture was made on the deck of the lie de France as we came up the harbor in New York. I am lending the table to the Streets of Paris at the Century of Progress, where it will occupy its corner at the Chicago Cafe de la Paix.

BURTON HOLMES

Chicago, 111.

"God Bless You, Gene"

Sirs:

Your issue of May 22 might well have included Eugene R. Black's one favorite story.

He and others were receiving diplomas at the hands of Chancellor Hill of the University of Georgia. First called, honor student, Samuel H. Sibley, now Justice of the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, New Orleans. Says the Chancellor: "Sam, you are a brilliant, fine boy, etc, and I predict a life of great achievement for you. I'm proud, etc. etc." Next, alphabetically next. Gene Black. The Chancellor hesitated, looked at Gene, tried to begin, hesitated, hummed, then gave up and said "God bless you Gene."

ADAM G. ADAMS

Miami, Fla.

Sirs:

As my first pants were placed on me by the new Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank, I feel justified in giving you a little story concerning him.

Your excellent article appearing in today's issue (May 22) refers to his golf game. One day I was taking a shower following a game over the Druid Hill's Course in Atlanta and "Brother Gene" sauntered in after a very distressing round in the high go's, but typical of his rebound from distress, he turned on his shower and with that wonderful smile of his, said, "Well--there's one thing certain--I can take as good a bath as any member of this club."

M. S. HODGSON

Athens, Ga.

Ellsberg on Pontoons

Sirs:

In your issue of May 1, you published an article on the new Chief of Aeronautics which in absolutely correct terms discussed his work in lifting the S-51 and the 54.

In your issue of May 22, a critical letter appeared, implying that the credit was improperly assigned in your original article, and bringing in the case of the F-4 and the officer who raised her, and stating that "the technique developed in raising the F-4 was used throughout the raising of the S-51 and the S-4."

This statement is grossly inaccurate. The F4, a vessel of about 280 tons, was lifted by sweeping cables under her while she lay in 304 ft. of water, and then, taking a strain on the cables, dragging her along the bottom till she had been dragged into about a depth of 48 ft. only, without even in this stage lifting her off the bottom. At a depth of about 48 ft. of water, being then practically inside the harbor, the dragging process went to smash, and to complete the job, the salvage officer built six pontoons which were used only in this shallow water for the final lift.

The technique of raising the S-51 and S-4 was wholly different. The dragging operation, which was the main job on the F4, was never used, and indeed the difference in size between 280 tons on the F4, and 1,000 tons on the S-51, ruled it out.

The S-51 and S-4 were lifted at one lift from deep water to the surface; the pontoons used on the F-4 were wholly unsuitable for deep water and constituted the major trouble on the S-51 job; indeed the salvage officer on the F-4 himself said they were "unmanageable" even on his shallow water job and expressed surprise that we succeeded in doing anything with them in deep water.

Since the S-51, the pontoon design was radically changed and the pontoons used on the 54, in no sense similar to the originals on the F4, proved easy to handle and are now the Navy standard.

No one respects and appreciates the work done by Captain Purer on the F-4 more than I do: but it had very little to do with the raising of the S-51 and the S-4 and your correspondent of May 22 puts an entirely unwarranted slur upon the facts published by TIME in connection with the work done in salvaging those vessels.

EDWARD ELLSBERG U.S.N.R.

Westfield, N. J.

Appassionate Tropical Temperament

Sirs:

This is to pray you to publish this letter among those you use to publish in your paper. "In honour to truth and justice" I hope you will do so and I begin:

"Be just," my dear director "be just"--don't attack only the actual Cuban government and publish all those horrors, that I assure you are augmented, as you have augmented the age of dear Miguel Mariano Gomez, making him a warrior of the '95 war! (Then he must have been--if he existed--a feeding baby!) By that scale you may see the augmentation of all this. Tropical temperament is very appassionate and in both ways they do politics with ardour. Do you know that actual oppositionists to government use to blow off with bombs concealed in automobiles etc. innocent citizens? Do you know that a poor woman was passing by a street with her two years baby by the hand when a bomb exploded and turned the baby into pieces? Do you know that often bombs explode inside theatres hurting the public? That is the way of opposition. They do this "politic" (?) to put terror in the souls, not letting live anybody. Do you know that in Miramar Reparto a bomb exploded killing the chief of police, a lieutenant of the army and two citizens that were standing nearby? That bomb was put also by the opposition to "put terror in the souls"! And I do not wish to make this letter longer, but I, who love justice, I assure you I am afraid if that people who uses to put bombs in the streets as if they were melons would be some day the rulers! They wish to get the power--killing the same people they wish to rule. No, dear director, you must come here. You will see that all the atrocities that happened in Cuba were not only made by the government as they say. I assure you men of the opposition are far from being victims or martyrs. They are not saints either. A WOMAN LOVER OF JUSTICE ! ELOINA GOMEZ DE VAZQUEZ

Havana, Cuba

Anxious Vanderbilt

Sirs:

I want to compliment TIME on its splendid portrayal of the German situation in March and April.

I happened to be in Germany during this period and was eager to see how periodicals back home pictured it. TIME was in my humble estimation the only magazine which described matters accurately as they took place.

You might be interested to know also that I saw TIME on the Crown-Prince's writing table when I interviewed him at 36 Unter den Linden in mid-March: and also on the magazine table of President Hindenburg, although the latter's secretary informed me your magazine was "very inaccurate."

I am now anxiously watching TIME to see what it is going to say about the Austrian situation. . . .

CORNELIUS VANDERBILT JR.

Salzburg. Austria

Matrimony & Alimony (Cont'd)

Sirs:

Congratulations on your "Crime of the Week" story of the issue of May 22. A beautifully dramatic piece of writing!

At the same time I would like to direct loud cries of scorn at Mr. G. T. Overman whose bigoted, unfair and illogical letter was printed in the same issue. His wife is probably a meek, browbeaten little woman who "makes his life--and "gives him nothing but a pain in the neck'' by occasionally asking him not to swear so much.

I believe that the question of alimony is one about which you cannot generalize. I believe it would be a better scheme to abolish divorce, then the question would not arise. . . .

CARLOTTA RUNYON

New York City

Sirs: I cannot let pass without protest the feminine reaction to the New York alimony law which is revealed by the letters in your May 22 issue. It is hard to believe that this attitude is typical of modern American women. Surely there are others besides myself who look on marriage not as a perpetual meal ticket, but rather as a mutual contract in which each party agrees to contribute to the common good. Except for those cases where a woman continues her contribution even after divorce in the form of caring for her former husband's children, I cannot see why a man should be expected to support a woman who is making him absolutely no return for the value received. In any case a divorced wife ought to share fairly whatever curtailment of income her former husband must accept, as she certainly would have been forced to do had she remained married. To free the divorced wife from those inconveniences and even deprivations which the married wife (and the husband, whether divorced or not.) must meet in times like these is simply to put a premium on divorce. Nearly every other sort of contract has been forced to submit to revision and scaling down. So three cheers for New York and its "new deal'' in alimonies!

(MRS.) MARIANNE C. RADIUS

Haledon, N. J.

Sirs: I am surprised to see that the Letters in TIME May 22 on the subject of matrimony & alimony came from three men and one woman.

This raises an argument in my home. My husband has always claimed that TIME is a man's magazine and that any women who read it are freaks (like myself). I think I've been a little fairer on my side of the argument and admitted that a lot of men like TIME--but I claim that the women are the ones who really fall in love with it, at least I have noticed that among my own friends. . . .

...This argument of TIME as a man's or woman's magazine seems to me much more important for a discussion in your Letters column, than the well-known argument about the word tycoon. . . .

ALICE, G. ABBOTT New

Rochelle, N. Y.

Sirs:

... I must inform the M. Bernheim that he is no one to talk about wasting space, valuable or otherwise. Being single, the question of alimony does not immediately concern me at the moment. However, I quote the gentleman: "They ('the vaunted female sex') want something for nothing . . ." ''For nothing?" Waving aside all opinion as to woman's spiritual companionship and other vague attributes, there still remains in fact as opposed to theory that one thing which woman alone can contribute. . . . Let the M. Bernheim wipe the perspiration from his brow. and reconsider.

I notice you delete profanity from letters, and then print the letters, as profane as in their original state. Perhaps you will discover obscenity in this: I don't know your methods of discovery. If unacceptable, you might be kind enough to forward this to the M. Bernheim.

ROBERT PREYER

Port Washington, L. I.

SIrs: A new contributor to your Letters column, I address this not to the always courteous editors, but to the embittered and insulting Mr. Leonard J. (for Justice?) Bernheim of Chicago. He has apparently been stung by the Alimony Bug or he would not howl so loudly.

Does he know the truism that almost every successful man owes his success to the influence or inspiration of some woman? Why, then, is it unfair for her to continue to share the spoils of victory even though they no longer share the same bed?

I do agree that if a divorced woman is still young and healthy and capable of earning her own living, she should do so. But. more and more, we see around us middle-aged couples who, after having lived together comparatively happily for many years, suddenly reach the divorce courts, usually because the men, now at the Dangerous Age, yearn for young blood. Is there no moral obligation due these women who have given the best years of their lives to their husbands, borne them children, spurred them on to success? They are now, unlike their fickle husbands, past the age of desirability in either the business or the marriage market. Their parents are undoubtedly dead. Should no provision be made for their future?

As to women being supported by some man before they are married and by another afterward, our Mr. Bernheim forgets, I am sure, that the times are changing and that about as many men play the role of parasite these days as do women. When I think of the number of loyal wives and mothers, who have never worked in their lives before, who have scurried bravely around and found some way to keep the home fires burning for their jobless men-folks the past few years, it burns me up to read that even one warped-minded man should have the effrontery to call our sex "basically parasitic''!

ROBERTA OGDEN EARLE

Boston, Mass.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.