Raw Deal

Sirs:

The $1.40 toilet kit for the "Tree Army" compared with the 32-c- kit issued to the Regulars is nothing.

The following are a few of the discrepancies made between the Regulars and the so-called "Tree Army'': The pay of a private soldier is $17.85 per month with $1.50 taken out for laundry. The soldier must pay his tailor, barber, and tobacco bills out of this amount. The soldier is sworn to protect the United States against all enemies for three years. The government expects the soldier to keep his part of the contract, and has a place for him, with a high wall around it to keep him in if he fails to keep his oath.

The jobless "Tree Army" boy receives $30 pay per month, with laundry, tobacco, chewing gum and picture shows free. He takes no oath and is free to go home any time he chooses. It has been estimated that not more than 30% of the accepted candidates for the C. C. C. could have passed the Regular Army enlistment examination, therefore the higher qualified 70-c--per-day soldier has been cut to 59 1/2-c- per day so that the budget could be balanced, and the unqualified, out-of-job boy may be paid $1 per day for doing useless labor in the woods.

What do you think the Regulars think of the discrimination? They think they are getting all of the "Raw Deal," and they are beginning to resent the way the cards are being stacked. There is discontent in the camps among all grades of army personnel. Draw your own conclusions.

G. F. BAKER

Corp. Q. M. Corps

Fort Clark, Tex.

Scallions to Ickes

Sirs:

Thank you for publishing the very interesting letters about the Hoover Dam--information that every Easterner should know (TIME, June 12).

The changing of this name, Hoover Dam, is to quote Will Rogers, "the silliest thing" any Administration ever did. Also it is the cheapest and most unAmerican.

Scallions to Mr. Ickes, but orchids to a kind Providence which kept him from wishing on us a "Sistie" or "Buzzie" Dam.

ANNA M. BARRETT

Buffalo, N. Y.

HOOVER Dam

Sirs:

Every time I read about the Hoover Dam controversy, I have a recurrence of the same sickish feeling in the pit of my stomach, that I had when I first read of a suggestion to change the name.

Such disgustingly childish political acts are enough to make us ashamed of our own "fairminded United States."

A vote would undoubtedly show that most of our right-thinking and broad-minded citizens would much prefer that the name Hoover Dam be retained, as does Democratic Mr. Paul Clayton, whose interesting letter I have just read in your June 12 issue.

It will always be Hoover Dam to most of us anyway and I am sure that we all--Democrats "and Republicans alike--will feel much better if we can in the not too distant future, have TIME--or President Roosevelt in one of his altogether fascinating and winning, informative radio talks -- tell us that the name will again be -- officially and finally -- "Hoover Dam."

(MRS.) MAY SIMPSON

Dunmore, Pa.

Fair Building

Sirs:

We havenow come to to the end of the second week of the Century of Progress and the TIME and FORTUNE building is not yet ready. Why is TIME, which is usually so prompt, not on time?

JAMES VAN VLIET

Chemist at Chrysler Exhibit

Chicago, Ill.

The alibis could truthfully be:

1) That TIME is not in the Building Business and that the Building Business is notoriously uncertain.

2) That the Fair opened a week sooner than originally planned, in a frantic, futile attempt to get President Roosevelt to open it.

3) That a hurricane removed part of the roof on the eve of completion.

But TIME is not vexed since during the first two weeks only 1,000,000 of the total expected 50,000,000 attendance attended.

The TIME & FORTUNE building opened Saturday, June 10. Score to June 20 50,000 visitors, no complaints. -- ED.

Sirs:

TIMEworthy of mention is the multiplicity of the uses of the word TIME. We completed the TIME job for the chairs and tables for their un usually fine exhibit at the Century of Progress -- and it was a TIME job. When this order was coming through our plant, ambiguity was rife because of the frequent double meanings of such expressions as ''Have you got Time," ''Time order," "Time tables," " marking Time," "keeping Time" and "delivery on Time."

We found ourselves merrily confused at the factory and after awhile were obliged to refer to your order for chairs and tables as "Time Incorp."

IRVING SALOMON

President

Royal Metal Man'f g. Co.

Chicago, Ill.

Plots & Plans

Sirs:

In your discussion, under the heading, "Wealth on Trial," of the investigation into the Morgan Company (TIME, June 12, p. 19), you make a statement that strikes my attention and impels me to write this, my first communication to your enjoyable publication concerning its editorial content.

"Though they obviously cannot have it both ways," you write, half-baked liberals talk in one breath about bankers' 'plots' to run the country ruthlessly, and in the next lacks breath a they plan -- a 'plot' denounce -- for capitalism running the because it country at all."

This, in my opinion, is a well-phrased expression of a common misconception of the ideas of intelligent radicals. . . .

Those of us who denounce capitalism for its planlessness are perfectly consistent in our talk about bankers' "plots." The mere fact that our bankers and captains of industry (socalled) are too some sort of unintelligent to planned use their economy -- power even to for evolve their own interests -- does not absolve them from the responsibility under which their control of the community's wealth places them.

The inference that I, for one, draw from the Morgan investigation thus far is that, far from implying, as you assume, some sort of plan under the capitalist system, it is merely another instance of the planlessness that permits a favored few of our fellow-citizens to fulfill their whims and desires at the expense of the rest of us.

I hope and believe that your accurate reporting of the progress of our civilization will lead many more to this same conclusion. May you continue for many years as you have so far, meticulous, iconoclastic, and (relatively) unbiased.

JULIUS LEMANSKY

Brooklyn, N. Y.

Drummers

Sirs:

TIME in the June 12 issue referred to "Dapper Sonny Greer" of Edward Kennedy "Duke" Ellington's famed orchestra as "probably . . . the world's greatest drummer." In this we feel that TIME, usually omniscient, errs. In Funnyman Ed Wynn's latest revue -- The Laugh Parade -- black-faced, rhythm-master Jack Powell, now in vaudeville, set every toe in the audience a-tapping nightly.

Did TIME purposely overlook this genius of the drums or has his fame failed to penetrate to that "sanctum sanctorum''-- TIME's G.H.Q.?

BERRY WELLES II

W. A. BURNHAM JR.

Groton School

Groton, Mass.

Drummer Powell has a well-deserved reputation for his eccentric solo style, involving kitchen utensils, athletics. The drumming idols of the hot jazz cult, orchestral rather than solo players, include Vic Burton, Stan King, Sonny Greer. -- ED.

Cicero Up

Sirs:

. . . Gentlemen, being a Cicero resident and an admirer of its Bible Church, I am sure you are not justified in making the statement, "the Bible Church of hoodlum Cicero" [TIME, May 29]. That statement gives a wrong connotation to the Church and shows an absolute ignorance of the way the present Cicero should be described. The Bible Church is a speck of gold in a Middle Western sea of mud and is truly a wonderful Christian stimulant to all who come in reach of its teaching. As to the town, the only thing that has ever been wrong with Cicero is the fact that because of its proximity to Chicago, it has hail to lie a dumping ground for Chicago's gangland slop. It is now guarding against this and is an up & coming town.

J. S. CRUICKSHANK

Cicero, Ill.

Matrimony & Alimony (Concl.)

Sirs:

The letter of Leonard J. (not for Justice) Bernheim is as absurd as it is unjust.

. . . If a divorced man were compelled to give of his income in proportion to the number of minor children he has, there would be fewer golddiggers turning their eyes toward other women's husbands and fewer men discarding their aging wives for young flappers. Such a law would be one very good way of reducing divorces, for it would give the wife the advantage over the "other woman" and make her husband and his income less attractive to others. . . . . . . .

MRS. R. M. GARDINER

Berkeley, Calif.

Sirs:

As an old subscriber of your valued paper, I ask you kindly to give enclosed lines some room in one of your next editions:

Mr. Leonard Bernheim

Dear Sir:

I am surprised that am man can talk so dis respectful of womankind as you did in your letter to TIME of May 20 regarding matrimony & alimony. Haven't you had a Mother or probably a sister who taught you differently? If you were my son I would be ashamed of you! I am an old-fashioned woman and marriage to me is still sacred. It means duties on both sides, so to say 50-50, give & take, and I would not excuse a wife who is not willing to abide by this. However, my dear sir, my experience in a long life has shown me different attitudes, for instance that of one of my friends, a high-class woman, who for years lived happily with her husband, bearing him several children and being a helpmate in good and in evil days, until the time he met a younger woman (though he is eight years older than the wife), a divorcee who took him away from her.

According to your idea and your expression, you would "turn the parasite out, to root for herself" if I understand you right? Thank God, there are still gentlemen in the full sense of the word, in this world, who think differently.

ANN BERGH

New York City

Sirs:

. . . Doubtless Mr. Bernheim goes too far in calling the female sex basically parasitic, but that there is something fundamentally wrong in our present laws granting alimony for a little weeping on the part of the unfortunate women is unquestioned. Ernestine Manners refers to the difficulty which women have in earning a living in a "man's world." She might be surprised if she went into the matter further to find out just how much of this old world is owned by the woman. . . . In most clerical jobs women are replacing men because of better fitness and aptitude, and I am glad to see it. I believe in having the best man or woman for the job, and am raising no objection to this tendency.

. . . I knew that Mr. Overman's rather pointed remarks would irritate some gentle lady like Carlotta Runyon, who suggests the abolition of the divorce scheme. Certainly she would not care to live with a man in whom she had no further interest. . . .

Mr. Preyer's reference to woman's spiritual companionship compels me to wonder whether her companionship is any more spiritual than the man's. A companion, after all, is simply one whose association we find pleasant and agreeable.

Miss Earle's remarks about man's success always being inspired by some woman is rather amusing in the light of the following written by an outstanding woman journalist of our day: "It has been said on numerous occasions that we women inspire men to success. That is not true. . . ."

The decrease in the number of marriages will cause women to wonder a bit whether or not there are many intelligent young marriageable men who peek just a bit beyond the honeymoon and who realize that the loving little wife has quite a death grip on unsuspecting little hubby in the event of a serious disagreement.

I do think that intelligent women will agree that drastic revisions in the alimony practices would doubtless increase the number of marriages and would place the institution in better repute than it now finds itself.

E. L. BAILEY

Atlanta, Ga.

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