Stiff Schools

Sirs:

I wish to challenge the reference to Massachusetts Institute of Technology under "Education" (TIME, Aug. 26) as "the stiffest U. S. school."

As a graduate of the Colorado Schol of Mines, a leading U. S. institution in its field, I should like to call your attention to its four-year curriculum leading to the degree of mining, petroleum, or metallurgical engineer, fully as exacting as any engineering course offered at M. I. T. Other "stiff" U. S. institutions are Case School of Applied Science, the Schools of Mines of Columbia, Missouri, Michigan, and Stanford, the engineering schools of many universities.

THOMAS L. WELLS

A. B. Harvard

E. M. Colorado School of Mines

San Francisco, Calif.

Nie Mehr Krieg

Sirs:

TIME reported interestingly on the Boy Scout Convention in England, but failed to report -- or did I fail to see such report? -- on a larger and possibly more important meeting of young people, which occurred the second week of July in Vienna. Young workers of both sexes from many countries, 50,000 strong, met to demonstrate for world peace, for friendship among peoples, their slogan "Nie Mehr Krieg" (never more war). Taken in connection with the remark attributed to Ambassador Dawes, that war depends on the man in the street, this meeting of young socialists becomes truly significant.

An enthusiastic account of this international meeting appears in "Vorwaarts" Aug. 3, 1929 -- a Socialist paper published in Milwaukee, Wis.

EMMA GATTIKER

Baraboo, Wis.

Fifth Leg?

Sirs:

Speaking about "table of contents." Why not cut it out? No intelligent person would pass up anything printed in TIME. It is one-two-five three legs -- down kick the it line out -- with serves me. no The purpose -- "table" has wastes time and space in your valuable mag.

ERNEST LEAVERTON

Grand Junction, Colo.

N.B.

Sirs:

On page 57 of your issue of Sept. 2 you make reference to "Northwest Bank Corp." Correct corporate name is Northwest Bancorporation.

WALTER NOLD

Minneapolis, Minn.

Probation Officers

Sirs:

In your Aug. 19 issue, p. 10, under "Crime," you state that one of Superintendent of Prisons Sanford Bates' "methods for relieving prison congestion is to increase paroles now limited by the scarcity of probation officers. President Hoover last week promised him more of these officers." This is all correct, but your readers may be confused as others I know have been, into thinking that Mr. Bates' recommendation, which the President is backing, means the release from the Federal prisons sooner and oftener. This is not the idea at all. Superinintendent Bates is recommending as the National Probation Association has been for many years, more probation officers be employed in the courts to deal with offenders, especially first offenders, before they ever get to prison.

Because of the lack of an adequate appropriation, there are now only seven paid probation employed in only seven out of 90-odd district courts throughout the country. These seven paid probation officers have proven their worth many times over. They are appointed by the district judges under whom they but have to pass a special civil service examination. All of them are trained, experienced men in the work. Their duties are to investigate and report to the judges on offenders convicted but not yet sentenced by the court. They investigate the home conditions previous history and real character of offenders, especially first offenders, many of them young boys, who reach the Federal courts because they have committed an offense against Federal laws. If the report and recommendations of the probation officer convince the judge that the young offender can safely be released under a suspended sentence, and with strict rules of probation supervision, he is given this treatment instead of being sent to swell the overcrowded population of the Federal prisons and being stigmatized after leaving for perhaps one mistake, as a convict who has served time.

In some courts, it has been found that at least 25% of convicted offenders can safely and successfully be dealt with under probation super instead of commitment. . . . It is now proposed by our progressive Superintendent of Federal prisons, backed by our equally efficient President Hoover, to increase the investment in individual treatment and reclamation of young offenders in the courts before they are sent to prison. It is hoped that at least one paid probation officer will be placed in every Federal court and that in the larger courts, which handle thousands of these cases, there may be several officers, to make the probation treatment close and effective. Not only will this development relieve Federal prisons from a large number of first offenders who never need to go but it will reclaim thousands of them, and eventually will save the Government far more than the salaries of these officers.

CHARLES L. CHUTE

General Secretary National Probation Assn., Inc.*

New York, N. Y.

$563,000,000 Bull

Sirs:

There are 43,500,000 shares of General Motors Common Stock outstanding. How come the paper loss to holders is only $62,500,000 when it drops 14 3/4 points (TIME, Aug. 26, p. 47)? Come, TIME, charge yourself with a $563,000,000 "bull!"

E. V. HARKNETT

Bethlehem, Pa.

This "bull" reduces the paper profits of holders of 20 stocks boomed by the House of Morgan in 1929 to some $2,371,324,762. -- ED.

Tycoon & Skipper

Sirs:

... In the land of its national origin "tycoon" is a title of dignity, importance and respect. . . . With the greatest seriousness, admiration and respect do we, English speakers, call the captains of our great ships, such as the Leviathan and Berengaria, "skippers." A Japanese, looking up the definition of that word, would find that it actually means either: 1) one who skips or jumps about; 2) the larva of the cheese-fly; 3) a specie of fish; and 4) any of various small insects. That would be no reason for the Japanese to avoid using the title of "skipper" in referring to one of their own beloved sea commanders when they see us use that title quite seriously (even though colloquially) for Sea Commanders Cunningham and Rostron. Don't let us forget that whatever comic opera infection there may attach to "tycoon" it is of our own making. At any rate, "tycoon" can never be brought down to the low humor that "magnate" reached with the improvising of the tale of the colored woman who, when asked by her son what was meant by "oil magnates" in one of the Hearst sheets, replied: "Dey's the Rockyfellers, chile. We gets our kayhr-sene from dem maggots."

EMILE W. VOUTE

New York City

Haut Gout

Sirs: Stick to "tycoon" and preserve "potent." You have long since carried their abuse to an absurd extreme, but that is what gives you a ahut gout.

I hope that your appeal to subscribers after Mr. William Hard's letter in the Sept. 2 issue does not indicate that you are weakening in your unconventionalities. . . .

SAMUEL PORCHER Chestnut Hill.

Philadelphia, Pa.

Sachem

Sirs:

. . . Concerning ill-famed "tycoon." ... It is a blemish on a masterpiece of journalism. As a substitute, I nominate: 1) potentate, or, 2) sachem, the latter at least having the merit of being indigenous to America.

R. H. HOWERTON

Black Mountain, N. C.

Woon, Arbab, Huzur

Sirs:

I think William Hard is right -- why not vary the remarkably striking vocabulary TIME uses to designate the great -- and near great -- and in place of repeating "tycoon" several times in each issue, make use of such easily pronounced titles as nawab, woon, sirdar, nizan, arbab, subadar, huzur, boyar and a long list of similar names of various kinds of potentates? . . .

JAMES C. MOFFET

Louisville, Ky.

Hospodar

Sirs:

In the event that "a truly formidable band of subscribers demands its banishment" I wish to take a stand definitely, decidedly in favor of apt, unhackneyed "tycoon." . . . I might even suggest, generously, permit graciously the use of my beloved "hospodar' as an occasional, only alternative.

GEO. HALPIN

Newport, R. I.

Sinister Motive

Sirs:

"By usurpation," says Webster's New International dictionary, the "shoguns" (tycoons) became the virtual rulers, until by the revolution of 1867-68 the office was abolished and the power of the Emperor restored." By usurpation. Shame on you, TIME. No amount of radical-baiting or superficial partiality toward "Big Business" can atone for this. Above all, let me warn you, if you value your reputation, not to publish any thing which might give your readers a hint of the really sinister motive for applying this ill-omened word to your greatest benefactors. . . .

Rosco BRONG

West Liberty, Ky.

Reviews Reviewed

Sirs:

"TIME" cinema reviews are superior to usual moron-bating accounts of a racket which only "chumps" (letterAug. of 26) will wait in line to support. . . .

H. T. FROST

Chicago, Ill.

Sirs:

When Robert Emmet Connolley acquires the taste of the average moviegoer he will find that TIME'S critic is "of the people, by and for the people." The Single Standard should rank high in the year's pictures not only because of the ascendant, consummate, excelsior, exceptional, first-rate, golden, incomparable, inimitable, matchless, nonpareil, peerless, perfect, preeminent, ripping, sublime, superior, surpassing, supreme, tiptop, transcendent, unequaled, unique, unparalleled, unprecedented, unrivaled, utopian and wonderful acting, directing, and producing, but also for the fact that a new plot has been discovered. Out here in Iowa where they show some pictures before shown in New York, we Iowans are by nature trained to watch for the good inc pictures. Some of us may be hicks but we know milk doesn't come from a can, and that Iowa is no longer "Indians and cornfields."

KEITH H. RAPP

Alias: Hennebarbarberous

Red Oak, Iowa.

Sirs:

Re your movie reviews, I think they're splendid. Being a C to C reader it's the first thing I turn to. ...

I see about 75 to 100 pictures a year and have for many years past. Your editor is fair, just, and, I'm sure, knows his business. . . .

W. D. PATTERSON

New York, N. Y.

Sirs:

Making haste to rally round the cinema reviewing stand, so ably constructed it should have a host of defenders. In my opinion it is, both in style and content, entirely TIME-worthy, thoroughly satisfying, worth looking for wherever sandwiched. . . . Concisely it meets all require ments for the perfect review: 1) Cuts down to minimum details of story (most newspaper reviews give too much of plot and too little of everything else). 2) keeps a canny eye on directorial treatment, photography, continuity. 3) Maintains an interested, unbiased attitude on talkies, discusses technique of new pictures with understanding. 4) Gives fans insight into lives of players and does not blurb (as most fan magazines do). Its criticism is extremely sound and sometimes hits the nail on the head with shrewd precision, as the comment in Wonder of Women that one feels the actors are having their own way too much. . .

Louis DEVON

Philadelphia, Pa.

Sirs:

I quite agree with Subscriber Connolley in what he has to say with regard to TIME'S cinema reviews. They sound to me as though they were written by a moron or by some old crab who should be working for the Anti-Saloon League.

It is a safe bet that whenever TIME pans a (Continued on p. 69) movie that movie is usually a darn good show. I can't conceive of anyone not liking Showboat and in my opinion Laura LaPlante did better work in that play than she has ever done before. Also she does not meet the description with which TIME credited her. That is the only picture I can think of now which got panned but I know there have been others.

This my only criticism of TIME.

COURTNEY FLETCHER

Washington, D. C.

Sirs:

I agree with R. E. Connolley, Esq., Letters, Aug. 26. Often one wonders if TIME is afraid of the Cinema business circulation curse. For instance the feeble attempt to repeat the facts when covering Cock-Eyed World in the issue of Aug. 3.

"Dialog . . . outshocks" What Price Glory, were not the only weak spots in that vulgar attempt to screen something different.

I hardly think TIME can claim to be "on its toes" in the Cinema column. So we beg you to fear nothing. When Cinema officials encourage cinema directors to muckrake sewers for ideas give your critics a free hand to tell us so.

ALBERT R. MOHR

The above expressions represent fairly a body of opinion for which TIME thanks subscribers. TIME'S cinema observer has been requested: 1) never to weary in the service of accuracy; 2) to report pictures objectively, leaving judgment to others. -- Ed.

Motives Unexplained

Sirs:

In your issue of Sept. 2, you publish a statement about me under the caption "Lobbyist Shearer."

Assuming your valuable paper would be accurate in its statements, I wish to acquaint you with the true facts regarding your article.

It is not my purpose to go into detail or to explain motives but in reference to the so-called dispute with a Washington correspondent, Mr. Ray Tucker of the New York York Evening Post [now with Scripps-Howard chain papers] made a statement that I was a disgruntled ex-British Naval Officer. I informed Mr. Tucker that I was not British but had served in the U. S. Navy both during the Spanish War and, according to my resignation signed by Josephus Daniels, in the last War which shows that I gave to the United States Government and Great Britain the free use of all my inventions. I then notified Mr. Tucker's editor-in-chief to please instruct his correspondent in Washington to be a little more accurate in his statements.

Further in your article you infer that I was not present at the Court of Inquiry, at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in 1924. The truth is the Navy Department asked me if I would be a voluntary witness and I proceeded to New York from Washington and was the only witness called. This is a matter of record with the press and all evidence can be found in the Judge Advocate General's office at Washington, D. C.

As to my injunction against Secretary of Navy Wilbur to save the battleship Washington, that request was made by uniformed naval officers and the Courts of Washington refused to review my evidence that the British capital ships were 50,000 tons over ton. I am grateful to announce that the Hearst organization paid my attorneys for no other purpose whatsoever than they wished the battleship Washington saved.

As to asking Senators and Congressmen to vote for the Navy Bill or for Cruisers, I am not so stupid as to believe that I could influence Senators and Congressmen by asking them to vote, but I did at all times supply them with facts and figures that were undisputable.

As to my wearing a red necktie, I must protest as I never owned a red necktie or ever supported or advocated anything red. . . .

W. B. SHEARER

New York City

President Hoover last week asked Attorney General Mitchell to investigate Lobbyist Shearer's anti-disarmament activities in behalf of U. S. shipbuilders (see National Affairs). -- Ed.

* George Woodward Wickersham, President.