A-B-C

Sirs:

On account of the frequency with which South American affairs are ignored or involuntarily misrepresented in the North American press, I lave been very pleased to read a kind of " A B C " section devoted to Argentine; Brazil, and Chile, in your Nov. 19 issue.

Among the news referring to Chile, my country, there was a sympathetic reference to our 'protective tariff" for the benefit of Chilean smelting interests. Allow me to thank you for this, especially because I know that you are not fishing, but saying this because you broad-mindedly and openly mean it.

May I express my hopes that you will continue paying attention to South America and Chilean affairs which are growing more and more to be of a mutual interest for North and South America.

LUIS E. FELIU-H.

Consul General of Chile

New York, N. Y.

Better Reading

Sirs:

"Unbeaten teams at this point: Iowa, Carnegie Tech, Georgia Tech, Florida, Tennessee, Southern California (one tie), Wisconsin (one tie), Princeton (two ties)." [TIME, Nov. 19.]

This could be improved to make better reading for a Nebraska graduate.

Nebr. . . . . . . . . . .26 . . . . . . .Iowa State . . . . . .0

Nebr. . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . Montana State . . ..6

Nebr. . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . Syracuse . . . . . . . 6

Nebr. . . . . . . . . . . 24 . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . . .0

Nebr. . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . . .0

Nebr. . . . . . . . . . . 44 . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . . 6

Nebr. . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . .Pittsburgh . . . . . . . 0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

M. L. VAN HORNE

Easton, Mo.

For an account of a dour defeat let Nebraskans read p. 44.--ED.

Lindbergh's Antelope

Sirs:

On page 45 of your issue of Nov. 5 appears a statement about a dispatch from Mexico telling "of Lindbergh slaying an antelope from an airplane in Mexico." This statement appeared widely in the daily press. OUTDOOR LIFE did not believe this statement. Amongst hunters it is not considered sporting to use such advanced mechanical aids in the actual taking of game. Col. Lindbergh certainly stands as the embodiment of American ideals of sportsmanship. Consequently we investigated the report The newspaper reporter, as is common in stories about wild animals, had considered the romance of the fancied of more news value than the actual fact. Apparently Col. Lindbergh did not shoot the antelope from his airplane but located the antelope from the air, and, alighting, stalked his game on foot and bagged it. . . .

I have read TIME practically since the first number. The newspapers offering me such an indigestible souffle, I have come to rely upon your excellent magazine for the pertinent news of the day.

HARRY McGuiRE

Associate Editor

P. S. I notice in a footnote on page 60 of your issue of Nov. 12 an interesting remark of Wm. Lyon Phelps' about Father Riggs. In view of Prof. Phelps' observation that "he has done both" (i.e., written musical comedy and joined the Catholic clergy), you will be interested to know that Father Riggs' two most recent literary ventures are a highly theological translation from the French just published by Macmillan--and a translation of Rostand's "The Last Night of Don Juan." The translation of Rostand, as yet unpublished, is as beautiful, subtle and polished as the theological translation is lucid and elevating.

Outdoor Life,

Denver, Colo.

Damnation Not Invoked

Sirs:

In your issue of Nov. 19 you translate "Gott strafe England," as "God Damn England." A far more accurate translation would have been: "God punish England," the meaning back of the word "strafe" being that punishment is merited. Had your version been intended the German would have been one of two expressions, "Gott verdammt sei England," or, "Gott verdamme England." There is quite a difference between invoking punishment and invoking damnation.

JOHN KAISER

Marietta, Ohio

Grey Flayed

Sirs:

It is interesting to note the strange case of Viscount Grey v. Baldwin's late Pact (as well-recorded in TIME, Nov. 19). There was a time when the Viscount (then Sir Edward and Foreign Sec't.) was himself a defendant in a similar action.

It was on Aug. 3, 1914, that Sir Edward revealed for the first time, the nature of his own agreements with France. Said Viscount Grey: The naval conversations (with France) had prepared for the present an effective cooperation of the two powers in case of war, but, it has always been understood that these agreements did not "restrict the freedom of either government to decide at any future time whether or not to assist the other by armed force."

"What, then, was the nature of the obligation?" a member of the Opposition asked. (And today asks the Viscount.) In answer Sir Edward said: "How far that entails an obligation, let every man look into his own heart and his own feelings and construe the extent of the obligation for himself," or as echoed by the present Lord Cushendun in 1928: "We are under no obligation and could if we liked alter our attitude. . . . But Britain is not likely to do this because it would be absolutely futile."

No obligation--yet we will live up to it! "Voluntarily," they are saying. "Your conscience, gentlemen," as Sir Edward put it. The conscience, mind you, of gentlemen who were hearing these "nonobligatory agreements" expounded for the first time and on August 3, 1914.

It is history that makes strange bedfellows.

IRVING B. PFLAUM

Chicago, Ill.

Hughes Explained

Sirs:

. . .I have noted frequently, statements regarding an incident occurring in California in 1916, in which it was claimed that through some failure of Governor Hiram W. Johnson and Charles Evans Hughes to get together, Candidate Hughes lost California and the election, in November 1916. Each statement that you have made regarding this incident has been different and each one that I have read has been incorrect. It happens that I am quite familiar with the facts concerning the relations of these two men. . . .

In your issue of Oct. 29 at page 9, the following statement appears: "Of pique in politics the historic example is Senator Hiram Johnson's rage at Charles Evans Hughes in 1916 for not handshaking "him in San Francisco. The 1916 election was so close that Mr. Hughes has always been said to have lost it by that one handshake."

This is the first time I have ever heard it stated that there was any failure on the part of Hughes to handshake Johnson or that such an incident ever occurred or was given the slightest consideration at any time.

The facts are that when Mr. Hughes came into California, Governor Hiram W. Johnson was then Governor of the state and the republican candidate for U. S. Senator. He had previously issued a political statement urging the election of Mr. Hughes and the giving of support to him by progressives of California. Unfortunately, Mr. Hughes permitted himself to be entirely surrounded upon his arrival in California, by political enemies of Governor Johnson, who would not permit Mr. Hughes to meet Governor Johnson, and who did not and would not invite him to preside or speak at any of the big meetings held by Mr. Hughes in California. These politicians used Mr. Hughes in an effort to belittle Governor Johnson and to make it appear that Governor Johnson was not recognized as a republican. In other words, in an attempt to defeat Johnson, these scheming men defeated the misguided Mr. Hughes. . . .

In spite of this unfortunate state of affairs, Governor Johnson continued to speak throughout the state in favor of the candidacy of Mr. Hughes and to ardently and vigorously urge his election. Governor Johnson's speeches were widely quoted by the Republican press and were used in every way to further Mr. Hughes' election. . . . However, the progressive element in the State of California, which was then in the majority, rightly or wrongly became convinced that Mr. Hughes intended to align himself with the reactionary element of the party and to ignore progressive men and principles in his administration, if he were elected. . . . Consequently, in their anger, they voted for President Wilson, even against the urgings of Governor Johnson.

. . .The rage over the result on the part of the reactionary element of the party in California knew no bounds. They realized that in their efforts to defeat Governor Johnson for the senatorship, and to use Mr. Hughes against him, they had only defeated Mr. Hughes, for Governor Johnson was elected U. S. Senator by a large majority, while Hughes failed to carry the state. . . .

EDGAR A. LUCE

San Diego, Calif.

The Hughes-Johnson facts are as follows: About 4 p. m. on Aug. 21, 1916, Governor Johnson entered a hotel at Long Beach, Calif. Nominee Hughes entered the same hotel at about 5 p. m. Mr. Hughes held an informal reception. Mr. Johnson stayed in his own room. There was no meeting, no handshake. Mr. Johnson said he had not known Mr. Hughes was in the hotel. Mr. Hughes did not comment. Next day, California Progressives were enraged at Mr. Hughes. Mr. Johnson, however, said he was still supporting Mr. Hughes. On Aug. 23, when Mr. Hughes left for the East, Mr. Johnson and friends were absent, conspicuously, from the farewell party. Mr. Johnson's friends continued to express rage at Mr. Hughes. Mr. Johnson continued to say he supported Mr. Hughes. On election day, Mr. Johnson was elected to the Senate, but some 65% of California's Progressives voted against Mr. Hughes, who thereby lost the Presidency. On Nov. 12, after the election, Mr. Johnson made a speech praising Mr. Hughes, whose friends thereupon accused Mr. Johnson of having buried Mr. Hughes. Only one authority--Mr. Johnson's conscience--could say whether or not Mr. Johnson's pro-Hughes efforts were as effective as they might have been in assuaging the towering pique of Mr. Johnson's friends.--ED.