Washington Weaknesses Sirs:

The cynical political philosophy contained in the two quotations, which I cite below, from the April 4 issue of TIME, should be of alarming interest to everyone.

On p. 12, there is a footnote referring to Congressman Patman's measure on the Bonus, the last sentence of which reads: "Last week Congressman Patman declared that, with the election coming on, President Hoover would not 'dare' veto his bill."

And on the same page, in the next column, in a character sketch of Congressman La Guardia from TIME'S own pen, a sentence reads: "His chief weakness is that he has no responsibility except to himself and his own conscience.''

Are we at such a sad extreme politically? Can our President be frightened into signing a bill, lest he lose reelection? Is a Congressman's possession of a conscience, and his ability to rely upon it to be termed "weakness"?

GERHARD BRADLEY Haverhill, Mass.

Sirs: You describe Congressman La Guardia as sincere and earnest and yet immediately follow by stating that his chief weakness is that he is responsible only to himself and his conscience. It would be interesting to know why you consider this as a weakness--except possibly in a political sense--in a legislator or anyone else. H. S. MORRISS

Indianapolis, Ind.

There are two theories of Congressional behavior: 1) to subordinate individual judgment to the judgment of one's party's leadership; 2) to obey implicitly the dictates of one's constituency. Congressman La Guardia holds with neither of these theories. He lets his constituency follow him; he declines to follow his party leaders. Such behavior is usually ineffectual in positive legislative efforts and is thus a weakness. But in negative efforts, such as beating the Sales Tax, it often works well, is thus negative strength.--ED. California Minds Sirs:

It would be useless to question the intent of the following sentences from TIME of March 28, p. 19:

"No Negro can legally marry a white woman in any Southern State. But Wisconsin does not mind, nor California."

The effect on the uninformed is to give the impression that marriage between a white and a Negro is legal in California. You are referred to Sec. 60. Civil Code of California: "All marriages of white persons with Negroes. Mongolians, or Mulattoes, are illegal and void."

VINCENT WHELAN

San Diego, Calif.

Sirs:

. . . True, Section 63 of the same code provides, "All marriages contracted without this State, which would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were contracted, are valid in this State." This, however, is a principle of law which has been in effect in most English-speaking countries for centuries and is not peculiar to California. You will note that the first section referred to makes the marriages mentioned "illegal and void.'' They are thus classed with incestuous and bigamous marriages and are distinct from those marriages which are merely voidable and which may be annulled and from those marriages which may be dissolved by a decree of divorce. In other words California does so mind these unions of Negro and white that she places them in the category of those which are against her public policy and which are therefore anathema. AUBRY MILLER Los Angeles, Calif. ... It is hardly sportsmanlike for you to say that California "does not mind" when, in fact, it has, as you could easily ascertain, a law on miscegenation. Section 60 of the California Civil Code says: "All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians or Mulattoes are illegal and void."

This law is designed to keep pure the white blood. This law does not prevent persons other than of the white race from marrying with the black race. California, like all other States, so far as I know, recognizes as valid, a marriage consummated outside of California if such marriage is valid where consummated, even though it forbids such marriage to be consummated within the State.

When Negro Toomer married Novelist Latimer in Wisconsin, where such marriage is valid (according to your statement), California had to recognize these folks as legally married upon their arrival at Carmel, whether it ''minded" or not.

This article was brought to me by no less than 16 different students in this school, which seems to me to be conclusive proof of the universality of its interest, particularly to young people.

The content is interesting in all of the articles, but your personal prejudices do sometimes evidence themselves.

C. F. CABLE

Dean

Los Angeles College of Law-Los Angeles, Calif.

California's Vallee

Sirs:

May I suggest that TIME be more accurate: thereby reducing letters of correction in the front and state that Rudy Vallee has some justification for his "We Californians. . . ." in that he recently purchased a large California estate.

WILLIAM LYNCH VALLEE

(brother) New York City

Vermont-born Crooner Vallee's new estate in Beverly Hills cost "more than $100,000."--ED.

Pelorus Jackfish

Sirs:

In your March 28 issue, on p. 29. you refer to a horse named Pelorus Jack. There is an interesting story behind this name, the details of which most any Australian can give you. The writer's memory of the story, related to him by an Australian pilot, is too uncertain to be quoted. Briefly, the story concerns a certain dolphin or jackfish, the existence of which is sworn to by many ship captains, which, meeting and swimming a few feet ahead of the ships served as a guide through the treacherous Pelorus straights on the inner route along the great barrier reefs of Australia. . . . L. M. FLETCHER

Chicago 111.

Pelorus Jack lived in Pelorus Sound, New Zealand. So great was his fame he is mentioned in Encyclopedia Britannica, which calls him "an individual . . . believed to have belonged to" the Grampus griseus species, Risso's dolphin.--ED.

Strassburger Prize Sirs: A jury composed of Professor Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Jakob Wassermann, representing the German branch of the Strassburger Foundation has awarded the annual prize of the Foundation for 1932 to Walther Reinhardt, German Consul in Seattle, Wash., for his book George Washington, published in Frankfurt am Rhein. The object of the Strassburger Foundation is to further good relations between the U. S. and several European countries. It has branches in France, Germany, Austria and Hungary. Its French jury is composed of Andre Maurois, M. Francois-Poncet, French Ambassador to Berlin, and others. Annual prizes of $1,000 in these countries are awarded to authors and journalists who made the most meritorious contribution to the cause of friendship with the U. S. during the year. M. MACMILLAX General Secretary Strassburger Foundation New York City Founded by Ralph Beaver Strassburger, active publicist, socialite, sportsman and Republican of Norristown, Pa., Strassburger Awards have been given since 1929. German Consul Reinhardt lamented last fortnight:

"The prize money is $1,000, but, unfortunately, I can't get it until I go to Berlin, because the Government will not permit it to be sent out of the country. Also the Government exacts 42% in taxes."

Subject

Sirs: "Citizen Simon's chief service to the Empire since the War was rendered during Britain's General Strike. . . ." (TIME, March 21.) Why not Subject Simon? I have harbored the belief for many years that an Englishman was a subject--not a citizen. Which wins? F. S. WINCHESTER SR. Snow Hill, Md. Sir John Simon is both citizen & subject. "Subject" denotes personal allegiance, properly is applied to citizens of monarchical or conquering states. "Citizen," more democratic, implies rights as well as duties.--ED. Doyle's Favorite Sirs:

I recall the editor's comment on a letter about Doyle and Lodge to the effect that every TIME reader should know that Doyle is dead and Lodge alive (TIME, Jan. 18). Not only are many of your readers acquainted with this fact but many of them also know that Doyle and not Poe wrote The Leather Funnel (TIME, Jan. 25, footnote on p. 13). In fact it was Doyle's favorite among his own short stories. . . .

PHILIP DRUIDING

Singapore, Straits Settlements

Duck Penny Opponents

Sirs:

I have before me your magazine of March 28, and note on p. 54 your article "Pennies for

Ducks," which outlines the proposed remedy for scarcity of ducks, and the bill introduced by Congressman John W. McCormack of Massa- chusetts, and I note in this article that you stale "Last week after three months of debate the sportsmen were agreed on a remedy." intimating that they had agreed on the 1#&162; tax on shotgun shells. I do not think any statement could be made that is farther from the truth and the facts than the above quotation. The sportsmen are not agreed on a 1-c- tax. I have taken the trouble to look into this thing in Minnesota, and I find that the Izaak Walton League are in favor of the $1 Federal license for migratory birds, and opposed to the tax. The same thing is true of the Hennepin County Sportsmen's League and the Minnesota Game Protective League. . . . I have just talked to one of our commissioners and he advises me that they are opposed to the tax. Then, stepping out of Minnesota, I have a letter from the Secretary of the Adams County Sportsmen's Association of Quincy, Ill. . . . I believe this shows that the sportsmen are not all in favor of such a law, and in regard to what this law would do--it would create another Bureau in Washington. We would have another tax, but it is very doubtful if we would ever get any money to spend for breeding grounds for migratory fowl, and furthermore, the greater portion of shells that are shot are not shot at migratory water fowl. In the State of Wisconsin this is indicated by reports of less than 30% of the hunters licensed last year, which show a kill of 1,167,645 units of game; an average of 23 units per hunter. Of this number 701,119 were rabbits. Therefore, at least seven-elevenths of the game shot was not migratory water fowl. In addition to this seven-elevenths a great number of shells were shot at prairie chickens, sharp tail grouse and other upland birds. ... I have also been advised that in the State of Pennsylvania out of 596,000 licenses less than 8% of this number shoot water fowl. It is, therefore, quite evident that such a bill would put a tax against a great many people who are not interested in water fowl, and therefore should not be passed. . . . H. E. BERREAU

Minneapolis, Minn.

Sportsmen had opportunity last week to air their views on the proposed penny-a-shell tax, at a three-day hearing of the Senate Committee on the Conservation of Wild Life Resources. Opponents of the measure included President Seth Gordon of the American Game Association; President William J. Tucker of the International Association of Game, Fish & Conservation Commissioners; Minnesota's Director of Conservation Wr. T. Cox. Proponents included Vice President Arthur F. Foran of More Game Birds in America Inc., New York's Sportsman Murry Guggenheim. After the hearing. Connecticut's Senator Walcott, chairman of the committee, predicted that migratory bird laws would be revised to give States more power in fixing their own shooting seasons.--ED.

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