TIME Marches Back

Sirs:

I have read with pleasure your announcement of June 7 that your radio broadcasts, "The March of Time," will be resumed in September. I was among your readers who regretted your announcement last February that you were going off the air. I of course possess no means of knowing the financial advantage to you of this form of advertising. I only know that as a radio listener I looked upon your broadcast as one of the very best and most interesting on the air, hence my joy at knowing you are to resume.

THOS. A. BUCKNER

President New York Life Insurance Co. New York City Sirs: Hooray for our side--that is to say the radio audience. I'm delighted to hear that our collective voice was strong enough to bring back "The March of Tirae" to the air. Indeed I shall have a front seat on Friday. Sept. 9, at 8.30 p. m.

VIVIAN M. BEHENNA Hyattsville, Md.

Sirs:

All praise to TIME'S publishers for bringing back "The March of Time" in November. Congratulations to CBS's President Paley for his splendid cooperation in bringing it to us in time to get the real political facts of the campaign. Two progressive and aggressive organizations, TIME and CBS. joined together to give the radio public the best of all airway features My thanks to TIME. Our family will be present at the loudspeaker on September o at 8:30 p. m. and we will be "all ears." But--why stop in March?

G. C. HALL Baltimore, Md.

Sirs:

The notice that "The March of Time" will return to the air on Sept. 9 is indeed good news.

ou are to be congratulated on your courage in going ahead with the expenditure of so much money in these days of retrenchment. CBS is to be congratulated for its contribution during September and October.

You will receive your money back many times, I am sure, and CBS will at least have the comfort of knowing that a lot of radios will once more arouse from a state of inactivity at least once a week, which may help to get them back in the habit.

CHARLES ABEL Cleveland, Ohio

Sirs:

I recall that when you discontinued your broadcast in February, you suggested that "The March of Time" should be carried on as a sustaining feature by some of the broadcasting companies, and that you did not deem further expenditure along this line justified.

Now then, while I enjoyed your broadcast, the fact is that your publication has little to offer to one who like myself has available most of your subject matter from among numerous other publications that I read. Nevertheless I purchased TIME, feeling that in that manner I was helping to pay for whatever pleasure was derived from the broadcast.

When you discontinued on the air I discontinued purchasing your periodical, and in the small suburb where I reside at least one-half dozen people whom I know intimately did the very same thing.

I would no more expect a broadcasting company to continue that feature as a sustaining program than I would a publication carrying informative advertising gratis. TIME was the beneficiary of whatever goodwill was created and the broadcasting companies have as much right to payment for their facilities as you have for space in your advertising columns.

Whether expenditures you make are justified will of course depend entirely upon the returns you may receive. I however feel that you will be amply compensated by the increase in your circulation and by numerous friends you will make. Here is a concrete example. For years the_Literary Digest has boasted of the fact that it is used as a reference book among school children. My one and only interest in your broadcast is that it appeals to my children, who are of school age and I feel that among this element you will be building up a following which in years to come will be priceless.

I might also add that I consider Mr. Paley most generous in putting your program on the air two months before you begin paying for the time. In fact it is by far more generous than the press treats the broadcasters.

WILLIAM L. SCHWARTZ New York City

Sirs:

. . . Especial enthusiasm is aroused by your decision to be independent. The fearless presentation of news by the late, lamented "March of Time" is the very feature which made it valuable--otherwise, it would merely have been entertaining. . . .

EDMUND OTTO Jersey City, N. J.

Sirs:

. . . With the 22,231 others, which I believe survey indicated represent about 1% of the listeners to the program, I wish to express my sincere thanks for the public spirit that I know enters so largely into this program resumption. Let me express the hope that, in addition to its instructive virtue for the American public, the resumption of the program may prove of direct economic value to your own organization. . . .

H. WALTER SCOTT Philadelphia, Pa.

Heavenly Cover

Sirs:

What made me do it? Three times today I checked myself as I was about to put some objects on top of Japan's Son of Heaven (TIME June 6).

Was it the power of the press, or a feeling that the Japanese might not like it?

R. E. ZACHERT Brinson, Ga.

Sirs:

Of course, I shall do as the respectful Japanese hope and trust--place TIME (June 6) with the front cover upward. But what shall I do next week? May I not put my most recent TIME on top of the previous issue, even if its front cover reproduces a color picture of the "Son of Heaven"? Wouldn't it be similar to putting the Bible on the U. S. flag?

M. ELIZABETH TOBIN Portland, Ore.

Three Biggest Jobs

Sirs:

In your issue of June 6 the contents of the article captioned "His Honor's Honor" brought this question to my mind: Who holds the second biggest job in the U. S.?

Obviously the presidency of our country is rated first but who may be classed as second? My guess is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court but maybe I'm wrong.

JANE MEISEL Cleveland Heights, Ohio

"Second biggest job" (elective job, TIME meant) is the governorship of the first State, New York. "Third biggest," the mayoralty of the first city.--ED.

Defender Kemal

Sirs:

After waiting for long I have at last found a weak spot. You were not at all clear in regard to the Turkish gentleman by the name of Kemal. On p. 19, June 13, under Turkey, you speak of Dictator Mustafa Kemal Pasha and in the next paragraph you speak of Divisional Commander Kemal without explaining that you were talking about two men, each with the name Kemal.

In the year 1929, I paid a very delightful visit to a Scottish Rite Lodge of Masons in Constantinople. There was a banquet and facing me on the other side of my table was a medium-sized, modest man of cheerful, friendly and unassuming manner who did not use tobacco. We talked through an interpreter who sat at his side. I was very much interested to learn that this very modest gentleman with whom I was talking was General Kemal, the defender of the region which included Constantinople during the Great War. General Kemal the defender, when introduced, explained that while his name was Kemal and spelled exactly as Dictator Kemal spells his, there was no relationship. I doubt if your readers realized by reading your article that you were talking about two distinct outstanding Turkish characters, the Dictator Mustafa Kemal Pasha and General Kemal, the defender.

WALLACE K. WONDERS Detroit, Mich.

Let Subscriber Wonders henceforth beware of the exceedingly modest, middle-sized man who sat across from him at a Scottish Rite Lodge of Masons' banquet in Constantinople (now Istanbul). There is only one "General Kemal the defender of the region which included Constantinople during the Great War" and he is today the Dictator of Turkey, Mustapha Kemal Pasha.--ED.

Interchangeable Bolsheviki

Sirs:

In the May 23 issue of TIME you had the following:

"Contrary to popular misconception the Russian system today is not Communism, nor does the ruling Communist Party claim to have Communized Russia. According to Joseph Stalin, Russians are 'building Socialism,' will later attempt to build Communism."

This paragraph has aided me in winning a point in a discussion in which I maintained that Communism, Socialism and Bolshevism, the system of government Russia is now attempting, are fundamentally unlike, and as a result has prompted me to write you for material and a brief analysis explaining the differences in these forms of government.

JOHN BRINDA Chicago, Ill.

Bolshe in Russian means "larger." The Bolsheviki were at first merely the larger group or majority of the Russian Social-Democrat Party which split up in 1903 into the Bolsheviki, led by Lenin and the Mensheviki (minority). In 1918 the Bolshevik Party adopted the name Communist Party, of which Josef Stalin is now Secretary and as such Dictator of Russia.

Lenin used the terms "Socialism" and "Communism" as interchangeable synonyms. The basic doctrine behind both words is a concept of society in which the State would own all means of production and private, or "capitalistic," profit would be eliminated. Regrettable is the extreme looseness of meaning which: 1) permits James Ramsay MacDonald to call himself a "Socialist," although he does not strive for State ownership of the means of production; and 2) permits Josef Stalin to be known as a "Communist," although he recently restored to Russian peasants the right of private trade with its inevitable capitalistic profits (TIME, May 23).--ED.

Kudos

Sirs:

Under that intriguing heading "Kudos" you might next week include the following:

World School of Journalism (U. S. Branch):

Vanity Fair (for the so enlightening article on Staff Photographer Steichen written by Associate Editor Brokaw) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.D.*

TIME (for the fallal fancy over Marching On, and the generosity of the Editorship with the roses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.D.*

The New Yorker (for the senseless and humorless scribblings by self-adjudged Artist Thurber) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.D.*

Otherthanthat, you've a damn nice magazine. .

* Doctor of Ballyhoo.

H. M. SULLIVAN Peru, Ind.

"Muggsy"

Sirs: TIME, clear, curt, hardly complete, failed to mention possibly the most dramatic struggle in the life of John J. McGraw (TIME, June 13)-- his battle against a nickname. Young and irascible Third Baseman McGraw was known as "Muggsy" in Baltimore, gloried in the name. As he grew older, fatter, the name seemed undignified. No longer a head-puncher, save in sundry clubs where he was reputed to have lost more fights than an English heavyweight, John McGraw objected to rowdy publicity, fought strenuously for years and finally had the offensive appellation discarded first by the New York and then by the national press. All praise to persistent "Muggsy" McGraw, so successful in his fight against publicity that careful TIME did not even recall.

JAMES H. McGEE New York City

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