Modest Congressman

Sirs:

I appreciate very much your compliment (TIME, Feb. 7), but I am neither 1) handsome, nor 2) 29. I am 1) unhandsome, and 2) 35-...

GENE WORLEY House of Representatives Washington, B.C.

> TIME admits that Congressman Worley should know his own age, is not so sure he knows his own face. - ED.

Bad Neighbors

Sirs:

... In Texas . . , Mexicans do not ride in the so-called Jim Crow cars [TIME, Feb. 7]; they do not use the so-called Jim Crow toilets; they go to the same schools as all other Texans except Negroes . . . and Mexicans eat wherever they wish. True, one restaurant in one town did at one time put up a sign stating that Mexicans would not be served. Can you, or anyone else, hold that one is the total number of restaurants in the State of Texas? . . .

A. MORTON MOSHER Dallas

Sirs: ... I have been in every one of the 254 counties in Texas and I have yet to observe any manifestation of conditions such as reported in your article.

Texas very definitely does not have "Jim Crow" law as applicable to Mexicans, and what segregation there is in the schools is for the reason of difference of language rather than for any feeling of superiority. There are different social strata among the Mexicans even as among the Texans, which the Texans, with all their recognition of the economic necessity of the various strata, recognize. But as to their lumping all Mexicans together in "extreme intolerable racial discrimination," that is a pure figment of imagination.

I am surprised that TIME, with its zeal for factual. description, should have been so bamboozled.

J. D. MOFFATT ]

Little Rock, Ark.

Sirs:

. . . The Mexican race, in general, is very unclean, untidy and unsanitary as far as personal health and living conditions are concerned. They seldom bathe, seldom shave. . . . They think nothing of having their dogs, cats, chickens . . . under the same roof with them. We Texans are at least half-civilized and have sense enough to desire cleanliness. I guess that is the reason we don't especially care for them cluttering up our towns and cities. . . .

(52/c) MARTIN J. MOXLEY, U.S.N.

Bainbridge, Md.

Sirs:

That's a good piece in your magazine--"Mexico--Bad Neighbors." That matter needs some airing, and you did it very well.

R. P. MARTINEZ Washington, D.C.

Sirs:

Difficult as it is for a native Texan to admit anything unfavorable concerning his state, I am afraid that your article relative to the discrimination against Mexicans was a body blow. I blushed with shame after reading it because I knew too well how true it was. A majority of the people of this state feel that the only good Mexicans are dead. . .

After dealing with them as a school principal, coach and Boy Scout commissioner, I was surprised to learn that they were . . . the most obedient, as well as the most appreciative, of any students I have ever dealt with. . . .

It is not difficult to conclude that the bitter feeling most Texans have against them is due to what happened over 100 years ago, combined with present-day ignorance and prejudice.

GENE HOLLON

Kerrville, Tex.

> TIME erred in ascribing to "much" of huge Texas conditions that apparently prevail only in parts of the state. But, however neighborly Texans may think they feel toward Mexicans, Mexicans in general do not seem to be aware of it. - ED.

Of the Many for the Few?

Sirs:

As one of the servicemen affected, I was appalled at the shortsighted and presumptuous action of U.S.O. President Barnard (TiME, Jan. 31) in halting further distribution of the pamphlet The Races of Mankind on the grounds of its being "controversial." Since when has a good dose of healthy "controversy" been anything but salutary? ... I shall do my damndest to obtain ., copy. . .

(SoM2/c) E. C. POTTER III c/o Postmaster Miami

Sirs: Surely the wide publication of your article, "Race Question," has thrown President Bar nard upon his own sword! I commend you upon your selection of this case and your direct reporting of its facts. I am confident that the greater number of your readers will see in your statements a sickness in the U.S.

social body which a very large portion of the population is most anxious to remedy. . . .

As far as the U.S.O. is concerned, it is hard to see any difference, even in degree, from Hit ler's burning of the books. Here were certain statements available for the great majority which were disliked by a small but vocal minority. The decision imposed was designed to allow the smaller group to prevent the larger from entertaining or considering these facts.

The fairness of the reporting in this pamphlet should have been a source of great satisfaction to those who truly struggle with this great problem. It could have been objectionable only to those whose minds were set upon a definite course of action and who were accordingly selfishly resolved to disregard any facts bearing on this question. The weak stand taken by President Barnard disqualifies him for his position. He has sanctioned the governing of the many by the few. DOUGLAS P. ADAMS

Professor

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Mass.

Gods & Devils

Sirs:

TIME'S report of the Chaplain Talbott incident was well done, and it will help Navy morale. The general public should know that Navy Chaplains are expected to do something besides tell sailors about gods and devils, heavens and hells.

CHARLES S. SEELY Lieut. Commander, U.S.N. (Retired) Norfolk, Va.

Sirs:

I am happy to be one to commend Dr. Norbett G. Talbott (TIME, Feb. 7) for making what millions of Christians will think was the right choice. . . . Those of us who have been associated with young people for many years know that, in the long run, they have little respect for one who compromises with evil. To expect a Christian minister to arrange for the "boys" a liquor party and to condone promiscuity by giving talks on prophylactics is asking too much of Christian tolerance.

ROBERT D. HICKS El Monte, Calif.

Sirs:

... As a serviceman, I must denounce Dr. Talbott's attitude in the same voice with which I laud and gratefully proclaim my esteem for the higher-minded ministers and priests who have recognized for themselves a far greater call of duty and personal challenge in the spiritual and moral needs of men far removed from the good influence of home and loved ones, than in any mere adherence to a strict set of shallow scruples. . . .

(Yi/c) CLIFF R. SAKRY U.S.N.R. Minneapolis

Amphibious Cooing

Sirs:

In reading about the "Battle of the Pacific" (TIME, Feb. 7), in which "Terrible" Turner's bridge was set up in a jungle clearing on Guadalcanal, I was both surprised and astonished when I read that "under the scorching tropical sun, amidst the quack of bena birds and the cooing of kura kura pigeons, dressed in khaki pants and shirt, he taught the new amphibious doctrine, which he was learning himself, etc. . . ."

I note that the word "pigeons" contains the letters "g" and "e" placed consecutively, but your sentence construction connotes the idea that the letters "G.I." should probably be used in substitution. Well-dressed pigeons may come home to their own editor (even though they possess only one shirt among them).

FRANKLIN SIMMONS

Davenport, Wash.

>Pants will hereafter be taken off all, save possibly Miscellany's, pigeons. - ED.

Tolerant Smile

Sirs:

. . . You imply that Secretary Stimson's jab at the American conscience, in his argument for adoption of the National Service Act (TIME, Jan. 31), left us in a collective State of shamefaced silence. Personally, my estimate of the intelligence of the American people is high enough that I would expect them to take the Elder Statesman's remarks with a tolerant smile, a shrug of the shoulders and then resume the business of winning the war.

Surely there is no logic to Mr. Stimson's implications that we should all submit ourselves to a National Service Act merely to appease our conscience and the hypothetical jealousy of our fighting men. The real problem is to win the war as efficiently as possible and, hence, if the ultimate productive capacity of the nation cannot be attained under the existing social scheme then we must have the N.S.A. in spite of its obvious unconstitutionally. However, it seems clear to me, in fact it seems laughable to think otherwise, that American industry, under the system of free enterprise has been a huge success in supplying our men, as well as the rest of the Allied world, with the necessary quantity and quality of war materials. . . .

ROBERT A. KELEHER Vallejo, Calif.

Magnin's Joseph Sirs:

I BELIEVE A CORRECTION SHOULD BE MADE REGARDING THE ARTICLE ON THE MAGNIN-BUL-LOCK MERGER (TIME, FEB. 14). YOU SAY: "FOR ONE THING, HEIRLESS JOHN AND GROVER HAVE NEVER TRAINED ANYONE ELSE TO FILL THEIR SHOES." JOHN MAGNIN AND I DID DEVELOP A GENERAL MANAGER WHO . . . HAS BEEN WITH THE COMPANY OVER 23 YEARS, WHOSE NAME IS EDWIN JOSEPH, A VICE PRESIDENT FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

GROVER A. MAGNIN

I. Magnin & Co. Los Angeles

> TIME'S apologies to the Brothers Magnin and good luck to Vice President Joseph.> ED.

The Time Is Now

Sirs:

My fellow officers and I read your magazine as often as possible and enjoy it very much. One of the things that fairly "browns us off" is this tax discussion. We don't enjoy paying taxes, but we do think that these taxes must be paid. It seems obvious that our present large national expenditure requires a large national income. This income should come from taxes, now! We have little sympathy for these "vote-catching" tax-reduction bills some of our representatives are proposing these days. Most of us are in favor of paying these high taxes while wages are high, which is now. . . .

CAPTAIN KENT B. WONNELL c/o Postmaster New York City

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