Mosquitoes
Sirs:
. . . The reason why I have not subscribed is because "famed," "Manhattan" and the aggravatingly meaningless captions in TIME irritated to the point of threatening non-sanity once. If you'll stop saying "famed" in every death notice and "Manhattan" for New York. I'll re-subscribe.Otherwise, I prefer mosquitoes are being less irritative.
EMILY POST (Mrs. Price Post) Edgartown, Mass.
To the famed author of Etiquette in Society, in Business, in Politics and at Home condolences on her onetime threatening non-sanity. --ED.
Annoyed
Sirs: I do not care to subscribe to this magazine any more. There was an article on General Nobile which was unjust.
I can't be annoyed.
ROSINA E. GILETTI Italian Secretary International Institute Free Service for Foreign Speaking People Jersey City, N. J.
Improved
Sirs: Let me say, by the way, that I think TIME resembles the little busy bee and improves every shining hour--not merely as Dr. Watts meant it, but by constant improvement in matter and handling.
CHRISTINE TERHUNE HERRICK Fort Strong Villa Rosslyn, Va.
Lawrence
Sirs:
I was rather interested in your article on "Massachusetts" in TIME, July 26, p. 11.
Your correspondent may be better informed than I am in reference to the "dubious relations existing between City, County, State and National officials," but I feel at liberty to take exceptions to your statement that "at Lawrence, Mass., the typical defendants on trial last week were the Mayor himself and his brother, a Chelsea police officer."
The statement in reference to our City and our Mayor is decidedly wrong from every angle. Our Mayor is Walter Rochefort, graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School. He has no brother, a police inspector in Chelsea. The indictments you refer to were Chelsea, Mass., cases and not Lawrence, Mass., cases, and outside of the above corrections your article seems to be reasonably fair. . . .
JOHN J. DALEY Ass't City Clerk Lawrence, Mass.
The erroneous assignment of Mayor Lawrence F. Quigley to Lawrence, Mass., instead of to Chelsea, Mass., was due to an erroneous news despatch; is regretted.--ED.
Greensboro
Sirs:
It is seldom that I give expression to a criticism of matter appearing in the press, but the absolute lack of necessity of the reference which you made to Greensboro in your article on Winston-Salem, p. 18, TIME, Aug. 23, impels me to do so. ...
As a former subscriber to TIME I was regretfully surprised that it should publish derogatory matter that can not be justified nor excused by fact, logic, or fancy. . . .
The Greensboro Daily News for Aug. 23 took notice of your article in an editorial, copy of which I enclose.
JAMES F. HOGE Greensboro, N. C.
The Greensboro Daily News quoted from TIME: "You are struck, on your first visit to Winston-Salem, by the fact that it is off the main railroad line, up in the hills. You have to change trains at Greensboro, a second-rate town (considering its advantages) where, dazzling and unexpected above an ill-kempt street lined with shabby buildings, a single white skyscraper towers up, its facade handsome with carving, its superior ground-floor shops the heralds of Greensboro's delayed awakening." The News commented editorially: "While five million dollars are being spent on four buildings, not to mention a flock of lesser projects, the landscape is necessarily cluttered up a bit, and as a lot of the work is being done on the street TIME'S observer observed, he might very easily, being the sort of observer he is, have got the impression of ill-kemptness. . . . Greensboro building permits ran in a recent month to some $750,000."--ED.
Finger Lakes
Sirs:
In TIME, Aug. 9, p. 9, a footnote refers to Cayuga County as follows:
"This county in the Finger Lakes district is the stamping ground of the famed progeny of two sisters (Jukes) and two Dutch backwoodsmen."
I am interested in this, for I have been a resident of Cayuga County all my life and I recall very vividly the interest which Dugdale's book aroused when published in 1884. I have never heard this county spoken of as the home of the Jukes, and I have looked in vain through my copy of the book for a verification of your statement; so I should like very much to know your authority for it.
Your magazine, which I have taken for some time, gave me a hearty laugh some weeks ago in your entertaining comment upon the Boston Herald's account of my death. I regretted disappointing many excellent people; but I don't think a man ought to die just to satisfy others; it should be his own private affair.
THOMAS MOTT OSBORNE Auburn, N. Y.
Sirs:
In your August 9th issue, in a footnote on the George E. Brennan article, I note that you state that the Finger Lakes district is the stamping ground of the noted Juke family of criminals.
I should be interested to know the source of your information.
ARTHUR H. ESTABROOK Hyden, Ky.
TIME'S authority for the habitat of the Jukes is a textbook entitled Applied Eugenics (Macmillan, 191820), written by Paul Popenoe,* editor of the Journal of Heredity (Washington, D. C.) and Roswell H. Johnson, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Said this book: ". . . the so-called Juke family, a strain originating among the 'finger lakes' of New York, whose history was published by R. L. Dugdale as far back as 1877 and lately re-studied by A. H. Estabrook." Messrs. Dugdale and Estabrook say that the Jukes originated in New York State, but specify no particular district by name. In The Jukes in 1915, Mr. Estabrook writes concerning the cradle of the Jukes: "Situated at an elevation of 200 ft. above sea level, in a rugged, hilly, thinly populated woody region, is a chain of five lakes." Clarence Darrow, the famed Chicago lawyer of Loeb and Leopold, and Evolution, in an article in the American Mercury entitled "The Edwardses and the Jukeses," puts the native haunt of the Jukes in the Adirondacks. Other families of the Juke ilk, studied by eugenicists, geneticists, sociologists, are: the Nams, Kallikaks, Zeros, Backs, Ishmaels, Sixties, Hickories, Hill Folk, Piney Folk.--ED.
* Mr. Popenoe's most recent book, Conservation of the Family, was reviewed in TIME, Aug. 30.