Man of the Year (Cont'd)

Sirs:

For Man of the Year I nominate Leon Blum, Premier of France, who, although a professional Socialist, seems to have become the most active champion of democracy in Europe.

ARNOLD M. KLINE Cumberland, Md.

Sirs:

I nominate for the Man of the Year General Francisco Franco, who didn't hesitate to take arms against anarchy, atheism and communism.

S. CZETWERTYNSKI Cambridge, Mass.

Sirs:

Because during the past year he has brought the development of yellow journalism to an all-time high (with some short-lived exceptions) and because he has distinguished himself as America's No. 1 political acrobat, the League of Yellow Journalists places in nomination for Man of the Year none other than its honorary president, William Randolph Hearst.

WILLIAM A. KIRSTEIN President

The League of Yellow Journalists Harvard University Cambridge, Mass.

Sirs:

My nomination, the supreme spiritual ruler of the largest of the world's Christian groups, temporal ruler of but a tiny kingdom, Our Holy Father, Pius XI.

LAWRENCE C. KIEFFER Louisville, Ky.

Sirs:

For Man of the Year I modestly nominate myself. I am neither monarch, dictator, fuhrer, president or even a deposed king. Nor am I a movie star, postmaster, baseball player, maestro or champion corn husker. I am just an average American Business Man.

You may well ask on what I base my claim. The answer is simplicity itself.

From high quarters I am vaguely referred to as one of the "vested interests" though "divested" would more properly fit me.

It is I who am expected to pay the income tax, undivided profits tax, social security tax, the plus tax, the surplus tax and the nonplussed tax. The Robinson-Patman, Wheeler-Rayburn and What-Other-Senators-Have-You bills are all aimed at me.

I must raise a family, satisfy the labor unions, send my wife south for the winter, support the missionaries in Kamchatka and trade in my new car for a newer car each year.

You already have my photo in your files. It is that blurred composite picture showing a man trying to keep his ear to the ground, his eye to the future and his chin up all at the same time. It's a good trick but who can do it?

SIMON OTTINGER New York City

Sirs:

According to TIME, Nov. 16, "editors and statesmen of every capital in the world . . . responded to news of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's landslide re-election with an international ovation for the winner."

With Roosevelt for Man of the Year, I move the nominations be closed.

MARGARET E. LITTLE, R. N. Cambridge, Md.

Sirs:

Doubtless you have already made your choice as to the Man of the Year. It may be too late to change. Does it not clearly appear that the real Man of the Year is Stanley Baldwin Prime Minister of England and the Empire?

C. E. LEMMON

First Christian Church Columbia, Mo.

Sirs:

For Man of the Year let me renominate England s Edward. This enamored near middle-ager who flouts the public opinion of a nation of conservative sourpusses, and who to cap the climax says he will up and marry the girl is out and ahead of the field in the modern sport of casual iconoclasm. As such he deserves the regained prestige your title must bestow.

J. B. MESSICK Grand Canyon, Ariz.

Sirs:

As you sometimes print two on your cover I nominate as Man of the Year Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson. We all love President Roosevelt but what other news story held, not only a nation, but the whole world, tense for a week? For five days the needle on the dial of our radio flickered frantically from station to station, all other programs and news items forgotten, searching for news from London.

To many to whom he was an impersonal monarch of a distant country he is now enshrined in our hearts with a respect that is akin to worship. No doubt the redoubtable Stanley Baldwin could have condoned a few "backdoor indiscretions." Hail noble Prince, for being true to your principles, the greatest gentleman of them all. The world salutes you!

JUANITA DA LOMBA JONES Ringgold, Va.

Sirs:

Paradoxically, the Man of the Year should be a woman. She outdid President Roosevelt by not only taking one country by storm, but all of them--

She made II Duce's conquest of Ethiopia look like the proverbial theft of confections from an infant.

She ran rings around Edward VIII (smoke rings, no doubt--or is that a fog he is in?)

She could give Mr. Farley lessons in the fundamentals of promotion.

It looks like she has made a bigger catch than Lou Gehrig ever will.

Now you figure out the answer--the initials are W. S.

WILLIAM W. PAUL San Francisco, Calif.

Sirs:

. . . I am anxious to know of your choice, for some reason or other, I always agree with you.

LILLIAN EPLEY Spokane, Wash.

Of the 59 candidates proposed by readers for TIME'S Man of the Year, the three who easily outstripped all the rest were the Duke of Windsor (172), President Roosevelt (113), Mrs. Simpson (86). Considered as two characters in the same news story, the Simpson-Windsor poll of 258 was greater than all other votes combined. To the 505 readers who voted, TIME'S thanks for their enthusiasm. As stated Nov. 30, final decision on who will occupy TIME'S first 1937 cover must rest with the Editors.--ED.

Briggs & Labor

Sirs:

TIME, Dec. 21, says Briggs and Motor Products "have one thing in common: labor trouble."

Briggs has had no labor trouble since the strike of February 1933. For four years, it has been outstanding among large Detroit industrial corporations for lack of labor trouble. No production has been lost in that period on account of any labor trouble in Briggs plants.'

TIME says: "Detroit newspapers no longer consider a Briggs strike news until it approaches in violence the 1933 walkout which forced Henry Ford to shut down."

The fact is that there has been no cause for strike news or other "labor trouble" news about Briggs to get into the newspapers in four years. The fact is that the strike of 1933 was peaceful as compared with what has been happening in strikes since then.

The strike was settled after several weeks by Mr. W. O. Briggs himself, who met the strike committee. Meanwhile, some of the strikers' demands had already been met, such as pay for a minimum number of hours to a man asked to report for work, for whom there was no work available.

TIME says: "In the opinion of Labor, working conditions in the Briggs plants are a disgrace to Detroit."

Whatever this unidentified, indefinite "Labor" may say about labor conditions in Briggs plants, actual conditions there compare favorably with other plants in the automobile industry.

TIME says, referring to the 1933 strike, that a citizens' committee was appointed to look into Briggs's labor policies with results "by no means complimentary to the management."

Even that committee's report would scarcely justify TIME'S statements today. Moreover, the management, so far as labor relations are concerned, is entirely different today from what it was in 1933.

TIME says: "Last trouble at Briggs was an epidemic of departmental sit-down strikes a month ago which resulted in wage increases."

The facts are that, as already stated, Briggs has lost no production in the last four years on account of labor trouble in its plants; only one sit-down has occurred; that was among a small group of employes who sat down for 15 minutes because they were uncertain as to whether or not wage increases already decided upon were going to benefit them.

. . . The result is an inaccurate report which seriously reflects upon the Briggs company, and is regarded as exceedingly harmful to Briggs in its relations with the public, its employes and its customers and is provocative of trouble where trouble does not now exist.

WILLIAM P. BROWN Vice President & General Manager

Briggs Manufacturing Co. Detroit, Mich.

TIME regrets and would amend an injustice to the Briggs company through its failure to mention the improvement of Briggs working conditions since 1933. After the strike of that year, President Walter Owen Briggs, a semi-invalid, came out of retirement, overhauled his management. Such disinterested investigators as Dr. Leo Wolman of Columbia University and Whiting Williams of Cleveland testify that conditions today in the Briggs plants, while not the industry's best, do now pass muster.

As to Briggs's "labor trouble" since 1933, the question is one of degree. The Briggs contention that it has had "no labor trouble" is at variance with statements of the militant United Automobile Workers of America, now on the warpath to organize the motor industry and concentrating on just such key plants as Briggs. U. A. W. claim there were 51 "sit-downs" in 50 days at one Briggs plant, the last occurring Dec. 16.--ED.

"Joey"

Sirs:

I feel that I should add my tuppence ha' penny worth to the Cause of the koala [TIME, Nov. 16, et seq.] As a resident of Australia for 14 years I have had first-hand experience with the "Joey." The term "Teddy Bear" is an American importation and is not used "down under."

The State of Victoria has provided a sanctuary for the koala on Phillip Island in Great Western Bay near the most southeasterly tip of the continent. Although almost extinct on the mainland the "bears" have done very well in their island home and lately have become so numerous that it has been necessary to remove many of them to adjacent spots.

These engaging creatures are common sights to the summer vacationists at Phillip Island. They are protected by law and heavy fines are imposed upon anyone who harms them. In the daytime the Joey leads a rather somnolent existence, remaining comfortably curled up in a gum tree notch. At night they move about and eat the tender eucalyptus shoots which are their only food. Often, after dark, their heart-rending cry can be heard through the bush. A wail which is the very essence of anguish as a distraught mother seeks her lost offspring.

So take heart, American lovers of the koala. Their plight has been recognized by the Victorian Government and it will be a long, long time before they join the legions of species extinguished by the greed of Man.

LAURENCE BRUNDALL San Antonio, Tex.

Sweetest of All

Sirs:

I read your koala article with interest & approval.

I am sorry I am unable to kick in.

I lived in Australia three years and have seen five koalas. Four that lived in a chicken coop in a backyard in Melbourne and one wild one. The wild one cried and when given some leaves to eat wanted to play. I gave it a finger and it bit me as hard as a newborn lamb can bite.

I was at that time a member of the crew of the U. S. S. Albatross (ocean soundings, volcanic research and the history of the fish of various kinds, 1913-16).

By the way you might mention that Captain Hannegan (as kind and considerate a person as I ever met) and Dr. Chandler Smith, ship's surgeon, pinched the wild koala on the ear gently and the little bear just sat down and wept.

It was an adult male and I want you to know, that it would make the sweetest and gentlest pet of all.

H. N. MCASHAN Glendale, Calif.

Unique

Sirs:

. . . Recently we have received inquiries about breeding koalas in captivity, probably as a result of your article. It may interest your readers to know--though of course this is quite apart from interest in preservation of the species--that koalas are unique in having a vermiform appendix of six to eight feet in length.

RAYMOND L. DITMARS Curator

Department of Mammals and Reptiles New York Zoological Park New York City

Considerate Australia

Sirs:

It is noted (TIME, Nov. 16, Nov. 30) "that though no espouser of Causes, TIME will gladly transmit to Naturalist Burnet Mrs. Schroeder's $50." This appreciation of Australia's native bear, the koala, is creditable alike to Mrs. Schroeder's heart and TIME'S courtesy. American dollars are acceptable in Australia, if received in the form of payment for Australian goods, but may I suggest that the $50 in question be applied to the preservation of American animal and bird life? Australians are not neglecting their koalas.

I do not desire to belittle Mrs. Schroeder's gracious act, but it should be understood that the importance of preserving Australia's native fauna is not being overlooked. In New South Wales the Native Bird and Animal Protection Act enforces regulations which permit our native bears to live in their natural state. Their preservation is receiving careful official attention, with sympathetic co-operation on the part of landowners. In other States of the Commonwealth of Australia the enforcement of animal and bird preservation laws is equally effective. The native bear is in evidence throughout Eastern Australia, from Queensland to Victoria.

It is interesting to learn, through Mr. Noel Burnet, that "few American visitors would fail to give everything they possess to take back to the States a real live 'Teddy Bear,' " and that "alas, that cannot be." Does Mr. Burnet desire to grant American tourists freedom to deplete Australian forests of this rare animal? Australians might welcome the opportunity to obtain "everything they possess," but not at the expense of losing their koalas.

If Mrs. Schroeder visits Australia this kind-hearted lady will see Phascolarctos cinereus-- to use our native bear's true name--enjoying full freedom of action on our eucalyptus trees. She will see the platypus, the lyrebird, the kookaburra, and many other interesting specimens of animal and bird life, displaying an arrogance not surprising in creatures so kindly regarded by a considerate Government and a sentimental people.

DAVID M. DOW

Official Secretary for Australia in the U. S. A. New York City

Satisfied that Australia is well able to take care of its wild koalas, TIME nevertheless has forwarded Mrs. Schroeder's $50 to distressed Noel Burnet's koala farm, will do the same for any other koala philanthropist.--ED.

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