Old Southern Woman

Sirs: I listened to your dramatization of the lynching of that Negro in Maryland. Now then, why not dramatize the scene of the crime? Let the world hear the piteous cries and pleadings of that poor old woman when that burly black brute attacked her and why not turn back the "March of Time" a few years and dramatize the scene of the brutal attack and murder of a young woman--the mother of little children--that occurred near Durant, Okla. That little woman was a kinswoman of mine. That was one of the most fiendish crimes I have ever heard of. I can't say that I approve of the methods that are sometimes used in these lynchings, but they should be handled rough and they should be lynched. The law would only give them prison terms, and sooner or later they are pardoned or paroled, and do the same thing over. Just suppose that old lady had been your Mother. If you have read this, I thank you, for it comes straight from the heart of an old Southern woman. MRS. G. M. RUTLEDGE Ste. Genevieve, Mo.

Capital Notes

Sirs: Your statement (footnote to the article on p. 57 of your issue of Nov. 6, with reference to the Administration's attempt to ease bank credit by increasing the capital funds of the nation's banks) that "the New Deal does not frown on evasions of the law if they happen to suit its purposes," although doubtlessly true as a generality, is wholly gratuitous as an explanation of the acceptability to the R. F. C. of $25,000,000 of the "capital notes" of Manufacturers Trust Co.

Title 12 (Banks and Banking) U. S. Code Section 51d. as added by Section 304 of the Act of March 9, 1933 and amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 24, 1933, provides, in part, as follows:

"In any case in which under the laws of the State in which it is located a State bank or trust company is not permitted to issue preferred stock exempt from double liability, . . . the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is authorized . . . to purchase the legally issued capital notes or debentures of such State bank or trust company."

New York State banking corporations are not permitted to issue stock, whether common or preferred, exempt from double liability, by reason of Section 7 of Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of New York providing as follows:

"The stockholders of every corporation and joint stock association for banking purposes, shall be individually responsible to the amount of their respective share or shares of stock in any such corporation or association, for all its debts and liabilities of every kind."

The issuance of capital notes or debentures by New York State banks, trust companies and industrial banking companies is specifically authorized by Subdivision 9 of Section 106, Subdivision 13 of Section 185 and Subdivision 8 of Section 292, respectively, of the New York State Banking Law, as added by L. 1933, ch. 230, empowering any such corporation:

"To issue by its board of directors capital notes or debentures when so specifically authorized by the superintendent of banks.'' ALFRED A. BUERGER Buffalo, N. Y. No law does the R. F. C. evade in purchasing capital notes, but the New Deal, expressing itself in laws of the U. S. and New York State, specifically gives banks a way to get around the constitution of the sovereign State of New York. Capital notes differ in legal theory from preferred stock but are issued, just like preferred stock, to get additional capital without subjecting the owner thereof to double liability. Said the advertisement in which the Manufacturers Trust announced its intention of selling capital notes: "Under the Constitution of the State of New York such preferred stock cannot be issued by State Banks, hence the necessity of designating capital so issued as 'Capital Notes.' Such capital notes rank the same and have in general similar conditions as preferred stock issued in other States." Pie is not cake but it is just as good a dessert.--ED.

Publisher Carter of Texas

Sirs: It is to be regretted that ideals once formed should be shattered and fine conceptions overturned. In the past TIME has won its way to public favor through its accuracy in presenting current events in a crisp, snappy and concise style, and in giving to its readers information in tabloid form, and thus vitalizing its news, rather than fictitious stories, interesting because they are scurrilous.

Why you should have turned aside to make me the target for rancid legends is quite mystifying, inasmuch as I am a private citizen, holding no office and caring for none. I am not thin skinned but even the most calloused individual would resent the untruths and false insinuations that drip from p. 13 of your Oct. 30 issue.

[No "target" of TIME, Publisher Amon Carter of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is one of those positive, colorful characters to whose deeds and utterances legend speedily attaches. He was the central figure of TIME'S report of Postmaster General Farley's junket to Texas last month. Let readers seeking a sharper picture of Publisher Carter reread TIME'S report of Oct. 30 and compare it point by point with Publisher Carter's auto-interpretation, published in full (unedited) below.--ED.]

Let us take up your attack in the order in which it is made:

First--you say that "Publisher Carter reputedly financed the Garner-Farley junket over American Airways, of which he is a heavy stockholder." Permit me to say that I own no stock in the American Airways, though at one time I was the possessor of 500 shares, which I disposed of many months ago.

Second--you also assert that I bought the Star-Telegram eight years ago with money made in cattle, oil and advertising. This assertion is of a piece with the rest of your article. The Star-Telegram had its origin Feb. 1, 1906, nearly 20 years in advance of the time recorded in your story. The paper began as the Fort Worth Star and embraces, through successive purchases, its two competitors of that time, the" Evening Telegram and the Homing Record. My connection with it dates from the first issue of the Star of which I was the advertising manager--in fact the entire advertising department--and has continued, uninterrupted, throughout its development. It has always been a legitimate newspaper, and its progress had nothing to do with investment on my part in cattle or oil, but its circulation of 140,000, the largest in the Southwest, was evolved from the patronage and support of the people of Texas, particularly of the West.

Third--you state that "Carter marshalled the Farley-Garner party out to his box at Arlington Downs to witness the rebirth of horse race betting in Texas. There an unforeseen unpleasantness occurred. While Host Carter was out making a bet, Governor Miriam ("Ma") Ferguson and her husband James, popped in uninvited to chat with Postmaster General Farley." This statement is entirely erroneous and is also an injustice to the Governor and her husband. The Farley-Garner party were guests, together with Governor Ferguson and her husband, at a luncheon given in the Club House by Mr. and Mrs. W. T. Waggoner and their sons, Paul and Guy, owners of Arlington Downs. I did not attend the luncheon as I presided at another given by the combined civic clubs at the Fort Worth Club in honor of Joseph T. O'Mahoney, First Assistant Postmaster General. Following this luncheon, I accompanied Mr. O'Mahoney to the races at Arlington Downs and did not in any way come in contact with Governor Ferguson and her husband, made no bets on the races nor did there occur any unpleasant event during the entire afternoon.

Fourth--you state that "Amon Carter in 1925, full of high spirits, paraded back & forth behind the Fergusons' seats crowing in behalf of the man who succeeded Mrs. Ferguson after her first term as Governor: 'Hooray for Dan Moody!'" In answer to this accusation, the writer was not "full of high spirits" and was doing no crowing. Dan Moody had not succeeded Mrs. Ferguson as she was still in office. However, having been a longtime admirer and rooter for A & M College, I did exclaim. "Hooray for A & M and Dan Moody!" following the touchdown by A & M against Texas. I was not concerned about the Fergusons in any way and said nothing in disparagement of them. I merely exercised my personal privilege to lift my voice for Dan Moody, the Attorney General. I thought he was entitled to recognition at that time, because as Attorney General, he had sued, he road contractors to recover moneys that they had procured through juicy contracts with the Highway Department during the Ferguson administration. That I was justified in this is borne out by the fact that later Moody was instrumental in recovering from these contractors for the State of Texas something like $1,000,000 and was elected Governor.

The story that James E. Ferguson, as you stated, offered a reward of $500 to any police officer that would arrest Amon Carter, is as real as Cinderella and the glass slipper, and quite as untrue as the innuendoes in which your article abounds. It is doubtless true that had such reward been offered, the rush of police officers would have been far greater than that of the A & M line.

Fijth--you further state that "when I found the Fergusons had horned in on a party of mine last week that I stomped away and did not return to the box until they had gone." This is entirely erroneous, has not a semblance of truth and is another injustice to the Governor.

Sixth--you make the further statement to the effect" that "The lights at 'Shady Oaks,' the comfortable country place on Lake Worth where Publisher Carter & wife do much of their entertaining, generally burn far into the night'' and that he never serves beer because he dislikes it, "but there is always abundance of Texas corn and Scotch, his favorite drinks, which he usually takes neat." This statement is not only slanderous and false, but that you should introduce Mrs. Carter's name into such an atmosphere is proof enough that a gentleman is needed to edit your copy.

Seventh--you state that "Mr. Carter's generosity as a contributing Democrat is only equalled by his enthusiasm for the cause and, perhaps, by his ambition to hold office." It is the first time the writer has ever been aware that either a man's generosity or his loyalty to his Party should be subject to criticism or slander. As for my ambition to hold office--this in itself is ridiculous. I have never held public office and have repeatedly stated in the publication with which I am associated that I never expect to hold one. Therefore, it would seem that you take malicious delight in endeavoring to embarrass me with the fact that I am doing these things merely for a selfish reason--trying to acquire a public office, which I would not accept if it were tendered me. It may be that in your environment you are so accustomed to things being done from a purely selfish motive, that it is difficult for you to comprehend that there are people, who do not belong to the "axe grinder's club" and that in Texas things are done on a broader scale. Perhaps on this account, allowance should be made for your insinuation.

It is true that I have patronized baseball, football and polo games and prize fights, however I do not own an airplane that will fly--merely a retired one as a souvenir at Shady Oaks.

Eighth--you further state that "at Houston in 1928 Carter threatened to beat up Rev. J. Frank Norris, a Protestant preacher, who opposed the Presidential nomination of Catholic Al Smith. When Smith was nominated, Amon Carter's exuberance knew no bounds. In his exhilaration he shot his six-gun through the door of an elevator in the Rice Hotel." This entire statement is a pure fabrication, false, slanderous, libelous and vicious.

Ninth--you state that "Last year Carter was an early passenger on the Roosevelt bandwagon, now supervises Texas patronage distribution." I have never climbed aboard anyone's bandwagon. As Chairman of the Garner Finance Committee, I supported Mr. Garner for President until the time Governor Roosevelt was nominated and Mr. Garner was nominated as vice president. From that time on, I naturally supported Governor Roosevelt and Speaker Garner vigorously, for which support I have no apology to make. As for controlling patronage in Texas--I have absolutely nothing to do with it. The patronage in this State is controlled by our two Senators, Vice President and our Congressman.

Tenth--you further make a statement that the writer sends the President, at least twice a week, long telegrams and occasionally a sleepy operator is waked up or aroused with a message from the White House to "Publisher Carter." This is not only false and ridiculous but is unfair to the President as I have never received a wire of any kind from him or sent other than congratulatory messages. It is my observation that he keeps his own counsel and is perfectly able to do a wonderful job without consulting me or even you.

Eleventh--you state "The political bickering at 'Shady Oaks' lasted long after Vice President Garner retired at 10 p. m." In the first place there was no political bickering in connection with the party--it was purely a social gathering. Vice President Garner left the farm at 10 p.m. in keeping with our promise on his acceptance of the invitation. Postmaster General Farley remained until 11:30 and the writer accompanied him to the City. It may be that some of the guests stayed later, a fact which I fail to see should be of any concern to you or even a matter of public interest.

Twelfth--you state that "the Fergusons were placed on Postmaster General Farley's right at the Dallas banquet next night, so Amon Carter sat at the press table." This insinuation is entirely unwarranted. The committee in Dallas invited both Will Rogers and myself to the dinner. We flew over by plane from Fort Worth in company with Col. Frank Hawks, about 8 p. m. Rogers was called to the front by the toastmaster and asked to address the crowd. He insisted on my joining him. During the time he was talking, I occupied a vacant seat which happened to be at the press table, attending the party in no way conflicted with the attendance or entertainment of Governor Ferguson and her husband or the seating arrangement for the honored guests.

Thirteenth--in your last wise crack, which is false, slanderous and vicious, you state that "the Farley party headed back to Washington. That, thought some of Amon Carter's friends, was where Amon Carter wished he were going, on official business." At any time I have a desire to go to Washington on official business, I usually go.

All the foregoing statements are not only false, but like half-truths are infinitely more harmful than if they were barefaced shameless falsehoods. They are beneath the level and dignity of any high-class journal or publication. Your gullibility in swallowing these accusations, hook, line and sinker, is unthinkable. I cannot understand how any self-respecting reporter, however careless or incompetent, could fail to ascertain the facts before putting such a story in print. It appears that this article must have been inspired from other sources, as it would be difficult to impute to your publication such a total absence of the elementary principles of decency and fair treatment.

Of the 13 or 14 statements supposedly setting forth facts, I find but three correct.

I was born in Crafton, Tex. I am 53 years old and as a boy I sold chicken sandwiches at the railroad station platform at Bowie. I might also add that I waited table at a hotel, sold soda-pop at the ball games and races on Saturdays, sold newspapers, worked for a doctor for two years taking care of his horse and buggy, sweeping out his office and, in addition, milked a cow--all for my board to enable me to go to school. I am not sensitive as to my age or ashamed of my early efforts to earn a living. While I have given Crafton no claim of distinction by reason of my birth, I know of no cause for reproach on that score. I might add that if the editor of TIME had been fortunate enough to have enjoyed some of my earlier experiences and hardships, the chances are he would not have been so gullible as to have swallowed a story of this nature or so lacking in the instincts of good sportsmanship.

Another statement in your article preceding your barrage of inaccuracy and fiction concerning the writer is your reference to Honorable John N. Garner wherein you mention the Farley expedition was for the purpose to rediscover '"little old hawk-beaked Vice President Garner." This statement in itself to fair-minded people stamps you as thoroughly lacking in the proper attitude of mind or even the respect a wayfaring man pays to the Vice President of the U. S. Mr. Garner is a highly respectable, patriotic gentleman, having served his country 30 years, brilliantly, successfully and courageously, at Washington. A good old fashioned "elm club" should be the proper rebuke for a contemptible remark of this kind.

In conclusion, come to Fort Worth, where the West begins, and we will extend you the same cordial hospitality we accord to any gentleman. It is proper to add that we always give our visitors the benefit of the doubt.

If you are interested in facts or possess as much intestinal fortitude as you have shown gullibility, you will publish this reply in full without garbling or editing it, giving it equal prominence with the original story, regardless of its length. AMON G. CARTER President Fort Worth Star-Telegram Fort Worth, Tex.

TIME, a newsorgan, is neither gentleman nor bourgeois nor proletarian. But nothing could better please a TIME editor than to see Texas as Publisher Carter can show it.--ED.

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