Men Against Reviewer

Sirs:

My friend, Charles Nordhoff, and I, while appreciating the friendly notice of our book, Men Against the Sea, which appeared in the Jan. 15 issue of TIME, rather resent some of the distinctions wished upon us by your reviewer. After giving various intimate details with respect to our private lives (which would appear to have little to do with the merits or demerits of our book), the reviewer proceeds: "Both rebuffed globe-girdling Cinemactor Douglas Fairbanks when he tried to hire them for small parts in his Mr. Robinson Crusoe. Both have been made (by decree of Governor Leonce Jore of French Oceania) chieftains in the Kilyan tribe."

This is news to us, and I am sure that the first of the statements would be news to Mr. Fairbanks as well; and the second to ex-Governor Jore. You should sit on the head of your office-boy reviewer when he makes such gratuitous assertions, for some of your readers may believe them.

But I am principally concerned because of the surprise and indignation the second fiction must occasion among the warriors of the Kilyan tribe, all of whom are, of course, faithful subscribers to TIME. If these savages come down from whatever wilds they may inhabit for the purpose of denying, with spears and war-clubs, that Nordhoff and myself are in any way affiliated with their tribe, our blood will be upon the heads of the united staff of TIME. And may you never be able to wash it off!

JAMES NORMAN HALL Tahiti, French Oceania

$250,000 Refused

Sirs: Referring to your article entitled "Birth Controllers on Parade" in TIME for Jan. 29, I wish to take exception to an insinuation wholly unjustifiable. You state that Mrs. Hepburn "started the show" (a good description of the hearing before the Judiciary Committee) by insisting "We are not connected with any commercial interest*." That asterisk calls attention to your footnote which states that contraceptives were on exhibit in a room at the Mayflower Hotel during the Birth Control Conference in Washington held at the Mayflower. The inference is unmistakable. Was it intended? Perhaps you do not know that admission to the exhibit was by card only; that the distribution of those cards was carefully supervised; that with the exception of a few, the cards were given only to physicians. . . . Not one member of the Federal Committee on Legislation for Birth Control has any commercial interest in any contraceptives, nor have we any association with any company that manufactures or sells a contraceptive. . . . Furthermore, Mrs. Sanger refused an offer of $250,000 for five minute radio talks on any subject she chose from a company manufacturing an antiseptic. Why didn't you report a fact like that? It came out at the hearing. DOROTHY H. DICK Secretary Federal Committee on Legislation for Birth Control New York City

Sirs: . . . The statement that the Bill was pigeonholed is not founded on facts. To quote the Chairman of the Committee: "Nothing has been pigeonholed, and the Committee are proceeding in the usual way. The whole matter will be considered in executive session as all such matters are considered." The Bill has not yet been presented for a vote. Over half the members of the Committee are personally in favor of the Bill, so why give out false information? . . . MARGARET SANGER National Chairman National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control Washington, D. C.

No date was set for committee consideration of the Birth Control bill which, TIME understands, will not be hurried because of strong opposition by Representatives Healey of Massachusetts, Lehr of Michigan (TIME--Letters Supplement,* Feb. 12).--ED.

Singers' Pay (Cont'd) Sirs:

I must dissent most emphatically from the view taken by a correspondent whose letter you publish in your issue of Feb. 5, that artists who refuse to sing without the stipulated compensation are "in the banking business" or do anything they need apologize for.

As the letter mentions John Charles Thomas, who is under my management and refers with caustic criticism to his recent disappointment of an audience, I feel called upon to enlighten the writer of that letter as to the circumstances under which such disappointments occur and why.

Artists, like all of us, must make a living out of the work they do. . . . An artist's season is planned long in advance. Each year he plans to give a definite number of recitals and these are "booked" or contracted for in advance by local managers who agree to pay a stipulated fee.

By this method the artist knows pretty well in advance of the season about how much his gross income will be and on the basis of such calculations he incurs obligations and budgets his own financial commitments for business expenses and otherwise. This plan contemplates that local managers become entrepreneurs. They attend to all the necessary local arrangements, sell the tickets and keep the receipts over and above their expenses. They engage in business for profit. . .

Occasionally a local manager incurs a loss. It is one of the risks of his business. . . . What is an artist to do when without any advance notice that his fee would not be paid, he arrives in town for the recital and finds the money isn't there?

The advance sale may have been very substantial and the public support generous. The money may have been used to pay other obligations of the local manager. Or, the receipts in a particular instance may have been less than expected. In either case, what legitimate right has anyone to demand that the artist perform without pay?

If he did so in one case, isn't it obvious that he would never be sure of getting his money in other cases?

It is manifestly unfair to bring into the discussion of the subject the entirely irrelevant charge that the artist is mercenary. He is no more mercenary than any of us who expect to be paid merely what was agreed. . . .

What your correspondent doesn't know is that it hurts the artist keenly to disappoint his audience! He is grieved, more than the audience, by the disappointment. He loves them as anyone would his followers and admirers. He would gladly perform if it were a charitable performance. But it isn't. And the very people who are loudest in their criticism will not contribute anything to let the performance go on. They want the artist to contribute all. Is it fair? . . . CHARLES L. WAGNER President Mgt. Charles L. Wagner, Inc. New York City

Topflight Penn

Sirs: On p. 26 of your issue of Feb. 5 I find two errors respecting this University, which I hope you will he willing to correct promptly.

Respecting the Harvard Law School, you mention it as the oldest and best in the U. S. This is a complete misstatement of fact. The first Law School on the Continent was founded at this University in 1790 by James Wilson. It has maintained its high standard and the reputation of Philadelphia lawyers is well established among informed people. . . .

You mention Harvard's Medical School as being ''in the U. S. topflight with Columbia's, Cornell's, Johns Hopkins'." The Medical School at this University was also the first on the Continent, having been founded in 1765 by Dr. John Morgan. Also in this case among informed people Philadelphia has been a medical center from the earliest time and our Medical School here is recognized over the world for its excellence. Our Post-Graduate School of Medicine is entirely unique on this Continent ami is therefore a step ahead of all others. H. M. LIPPINCOTT Editor General Alumni Society of the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pa.

Pennsylvania's law school lapsed some time after its founding, was re-established in 1850. Harvard's, founded 1817, is oldest in continuous existence.--ED.

Asymptote

Sirs:

TIME magazine is a little rusty on its analytic geometry in the issue of Feb. 12. Under Science, second column, first paragraph, last sentence, you state: "A curve representing it would be a parabola approaching but never quite touching its asymptote." Hyperbolas and many other curves have asymptotes, but parabolas never. A. H. BEILER New York City

Sirs:

I should like to venture an estimate that at the time of receipt of this comment you will have received vigorous protest from no less than 1,500 mathematically minded readers regarding a statement appearing in your issue of Feb. 12, p. 22. . . . Possibly some of the 1,500 can tell you what the curve should be, but I can only state that if it has an asymptote, it's not a parabola. . . . R. L. CAMPBELL Oaklyn, N. J.

Sirs: . . . Please define the asymptote of a parabola (you're a better man than Kinstein if you do). . . . NORBERT CAROLIN New York City

The curve miscalled "parabola" by TIME was neither parabola nor hyperbola, but an "exponential decay curve" which does approach, never reaches, its asymptote.--ED.

Black Beans & Pink Rice

Sirs: I return from a trip into the interior and stop for my copy of TIME expecting to catch up with the news. I find, for the second time in a year, that it is barred from newsstands in the city of Mexico and the Mexican republic. This is a great inconvenience to me. But I do not blame the Mexican Government. I blame you.

Your satiric handling of President Rodriguez' radio speech re: the newly-established minimum wage of 1 1/2 pesos (42-c-) per day for the Mexican working classes, in your issue of Jan. 22, is inexcusable. . .

You may hear from tourists who stopped at one of the Americanized hotels in Mexico City and went right on buying their favorite home brands of tooth paste, radios, underwear, shoes and automobile gadgets, that a peso is just 280. But the Mexican worker doesn't live like a tourist and he wouldn't want to.

In Mexican products, which provide him with all he needs, a peso has the buying power of a pre-inflation dollar. Oranges cost three centavos (less than one penny). Avocado pears cost the same. The staples, black beans and pink rice, cost usually 20 centavos a kilo, which is more than two pounds. That's 2 1/2-c- a pound. And if you've eaten black bean paste with chili sauce and Mexican pink rice, you know you don't have to feel sorry for anyone who makes it his daily fare.

The housing and clothing problem is simple here, and the Mexican has no fuel problem. He lives largely out of doors. In the country he raises what he needs, and he couldn't spend 1 1/2 pesos a day on "honest pleasures" if he tried. In town, a bus will take him anywhere for 2-c-, the best U. S, movies are shown a few weeks late for 8 1/2-c-, and a good pair of shoes can be purchased at the open market for two pesos. He prefers his own guitar to a caterwauling radio and he wouldn't want an automobile if you gave him one. A car in Mexico is a liability. If he is ill, his good wife who invariably knows a great deal about herbs can buy the required dose at the market for a third of a cent. This failing, he can attend a one-peso consultation held every afternoon for the poor by the very best surgeons in the capital. . . .

I cite these facts only to persuade you that the Mexican Government in establishing a peso wage is performing a greater good than you think. I was offered an hacienda in the State of Queretaro only last year, agricultural workers included, with the understanding I need pay the more skilled workers 60 centavos a day, the unskilled only 40. And I dare say even these would top some of the sweatshop paychecks in depression New York. MARION LAY Mexico City

*Copies of which will be sent free, as published, to each & every TIME-reader requesting any issue. Address 1, Van Meter, editorial secretary of TIME, 135 East 42nd St., New York City.--ED.

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