Time-Table Collector
Sirs:
TIME. Aug. 14, p. 29, contained an interesting article on the Davidsons in Kenya Colony, with a picture showing them on a rail car near Makindu station.
I collect timetables as a hobby. This morning I received from the Superintendent of the Line of the Kenya and Uganda Railways and Harbours copies of their various timetables. Along with my letter of thanks, I am sending him a copy of this weeks TIME, with p. 29 marked. It seemed rather a coincidence that the picture of his railway line should appear the very week that the timetables were received. . . .
BUELL W. HUDSON
Woonsocket, R.I.
The States & Huey Long
Sirs:
Regarding New Orleans Item-Tribune Publisher Thomson's letter and your footnote in Aug. 14 issue of TIME. . . .
I have no quarrel with Mr. Thomson's explanation to the world or his own conscience as to the Item-Tribune's association with Crawfish Huey Long, either in advertising, circulation or politics. . . .
But I do take exception to your footnote in which you quote an excerpt from the Senator's statement during the Broussard-Overton senatorial investigation in which he said: ''Since the counsel wants to know, we collected for Tin-States when they were with us, and for the Progress [Huey Long's own slandering weekly] when they were with us. Yes, sir, we help our friends when they are with us."
At the time this statement was made I promptly and publicly, verbally and in print, characterized it as without a shred of truth. I was not contradicted then. I repeat to you what I said then.
Huey Long never at any time ordered the deduction of so much as a thin dime from the pay envelope of an officeholder compelled to do Long's bidding or lose his job, to be turned over to the New Orleans States.
If he had offered to do so, the offer would have been summarily rejected. For the States under the Ewing management could never have brought itself to profit from circulation gained by that type of political coercion. The States never sought forced circulation. It wanted no circulation that could be construed as involving a sacrifice of its principles and political independence. . . .
JOHN D. EWING President & Publisher Ewing Newspapers New Orleans, La.
U.S. v. NRA
Sirs: I note with considerable interest that you reflect in the columns of TIME an unusual knowledge of the NRA program and the purposes behind it. I feel, therefore, that perhaps you can throw some light on a question that is bothering a number of people in this community. As a group we are pretty patriotic down here. Usually we subscribe about 100% to movements such as the NRA. Even now, when the movement is in its infancy it is very difficult to find a business not under the Blue Eagle--with one very notable exception. Surprising as it may seem, our own Uncle Sam is the only one who flatly refuses to put out the Blue Eagle. Since he is sponsor of the movement this seems doubly mysterious. He tells other employers that they must not lower wages, yet he lowers the wages of his own employees 25%. ...
Uncle Sam says the idea of the system is to give more people work and raise wages, yet he fires his own employees and lowers the wages of those he keeps. At Fort Sam Houston, Tex., he has fired between 50 and 75 skilled workmen who made $100 to $125 per month, and has supplanted them with unskilled soldiers at $17.50 per month. These men are now unemployed, many of them having been faithful civil service employees of Uncle Sam for from ten to 20 years.
Uncle Sam says, "I have to balance my budget." But doesn't Mr. Private Citizen have a budget too? Isn't it just as important to him as it is to the largest employer in the world to spend no more than he makes?
Please believe me when I say these questions are prompted by a sense of bewilderment rather than cynicism, a feeling of misunderstanding and ignorance rather than a critical attitude. . . .
RAYMOND GERHARDT
San Antonio, Tex.
Last week Secretary of Commerce Roper undertook to explain the "apparent inconsistency" between the Government's policy of retrenchment and the NRA's policy of expansion. His prime points: 1) Business and industry began to deflate expenses immediately after the 1929 crash whereas for four years the Government added 10,000 workers to its payrolls and attempted to maintain salaries at boom levels in a further attempt to break the depression. 2) This Federal policy produced a series of Treasury deficits which the country voted to end in the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt. 3) The Government is now reorganizing itself on a permanent long-range basis whereas business is being asked to adopt a policy of expansion as a temporary emergency measure. 4) The Government's $3,300,000,000 public works program more than offsets its operating economies as an NRA stimulant. Another point unmentioned by Secretary Roper: The Government is spending public money on which the taxpayer gets no tangible returns whereas the private employer who expands under NRA presumably can look forward to eventual profits.--ED.
Pinchot Cars
Sirs:
In your issue of July 31, p. 13, col. 1, you say, "That night Governor Pinchot in his blue Rolls-Royce sped from his Milford home to Harrisburg."
It was a brown Studebaker touring car which was transferred to the Governor's office after the State Police had driven it 13,000 miles.
The Governor never had a Rolls-Royce. By his order the cost of any State car, including his own is limited to $3,500. JOHN R. HOOD
Publicity Director Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Harrisburg, Pa.
TIME'S error arose from the fact that, on a recent visit to the White House. Governor Pinchot drove up in a blue Rolls-Royce--a borrowed car. Besides the State-owned Studebaker, Governor Pinchot has a Studebaker of his own. which he scrupulously uses on private expeditions. Mrs. Pinchot drives an Isotta-Fraschini; their son, Gifford Jr., a Lincoln.--ED.
No. 1 Decoration Sirs:
Your assertion that the D.S.O. (re: article on Duke of Atholl in Aug. 14 issue) is Britain's No. 1 war decoration is incorrect. Every military and naval man knows that the Victoria Cross holds first place in war decorations in the British Empire if not in the world.
The Victoria Cross (the V.C.) was instituted Feb. 5, 1856; the D.S.O. on Sept. 6, 1886.
In 1881, a Royal Warrant stated that the qualification necessary to win the V.C. was "conspicuous bravery or devotion to the country in the presence of the enemy." This rule holds good to this day.
The Army Council has recently decided that the D.S.O. can only be awarded for service in action, which means: 1) services under fire: 2) services in connection with air raids, bombardments, or other enemy action which at the time produces conditions equivalent to services in actual combat. Formerly the D.S.O. could be won for an act of great military merit not necessarily performed in the presence of the enemy.
Only British subjects can receive the V.C. and all ranks are eligible for it. (Exception: Allied Unknown Soldiers.)
The D.S.O. is open only to commissioned officers, and foreign officers who are associated in operations with British forces are eligible to be honorary members of the order.
The V.C. takes precedence over all British decorations, including the Order of the Garter. There are 13 other decorations which take precedence over the D.S.O.
From 1856 to August 1914, Britain was engaged in 42 various wars and expeditions, yet during that time only 522 V.C.'s were awarded.
Between August 1914, and Feb. 4, 1920, 579 V.C.'s were awarded, whereas there were 8,991 D.S.O.'s given, and bearing in mind the length and magnitude of the War and the number of men in the British Services engaged in it, the percentage of awards is very small, but at that there was, roughly, one V.C. to every 15 D.S.O.'s.
It is also well to remember that the majority of V.C. awards are posthumous.
The Medal of Honor of the U.S. is frequently compared to the V.C. but the basis of award is quite different, the former being given in times of peace, and it is thus not strictly a war decoration.
STAFFORD FERRAR POTTER
Pueblo, Col.
Sirs: ... As a matter of fact, the Distinguished Service Order is generally rated as lower than the Military Cross, which is the officer's decoration corresponding to the Military Medal for other ranks. The D.S.O. fell into disrepute during the late War--as indeed what decoration except the V.C. did not?--for it was issued to field commanders like confetti at a carnival, fr>r successes earned by N.C.O.'s and gloriously anonymous privates of the P.B.I. (Poor Bloody Infantry). The common procedure for incompetent colonels was to give them a D.S.O. and send them back to England. . . .
JOSE RODRIGUEZ
Los Angeles, Calif.
Volunteer Sleuth
Sirs:
A serious and alarming error in an item published in a recent issue of your publication has just been called to my attention. Since my name is directly involved in this mistake, I feel myself privileged to write to you explaining the facts and protesting most earnestly against such gross misrepresentations and factual inaccuracies.
I refer to an article entitled "Red Scare" on p. 31 of your July 24 issue.
It is indeed true that certain political elements in this State have overdone the matter of "Red baiting," have been extreme in their public statements regarding Communists in our State university, and have precipitated a wave of "Red scares," which your article so sarcastically infers. It is positively not true, however, that I (or anyone else, as far as I know) has ever been "hired by the U.S. Secret Service to smell out Communism in the University" as your article so boldly states. What is of greatest concern to me, personally, is your impudence in placing those words in my mouth. Your positive statement that I said I "had been hired by the U.S. Secret Service" is utterly false and a very bold lie. I have never said anything of the sort, and it simply is not true. . . . WILLIAM H. HAIGHT JR.
Cambridge, Wis.
TIME regrets misreporting Sleuth Haight's activities. What he did say, to Assemblyman James W. Higgins of Wisconsin, was that, while in the R.O.T.C. in Chicago, he had been "picked out" with some other young men to sleuth Reds, report on them to the Secret Service. At Wisconsin he had continued this vigilance. He would gladly furnish Wisconsin's legislators with his data. His offer was accepted.--ED. Thick-Covered Ball
Sirs:
In your issue of Aug. 14, in writing about baseball, you use this expression: "Whether or not, as experts suspect, the National League Official ball was secretly made slower this year, the season of 1933 has so far been a pitcher's year."
Nothing is ever done secretly with the Major League baseballs and we can speak authoritatively because for over 55 years we have furnished the Official ball for the National League and we have also furnished the Official ball for the American League since its formation.
The two balls are absolutely identical with the exception of the cover. The centre, the yarn, the winding, is exactly the same for both balls. When, however, the cover is put on, the regular type of cover is furnished for the American League, but for the National League a little thicker horsehide is used which necessitates a heavier thread in sewing. This change was made at the request of the National League several years ago and at that time it was publicly announced. There has never been any secrecy. Every one of these balls is made with infinite care to effect perfect uniformity.
We realize the important part the ball plays in the game and having been entrusted for so many years with the manufacture of this ball we have spared no pains to have them uniform in every respect. The slightly thicker cover of the National League ball does tend to make it a trifle less lively but the difference is indeed a small one, as the batting averages show.
J.W. CURTISS Chairman
A.G. Spalding & Bros.
New York City
This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.