Letters, Mar. 12, 1934 | TIME
Letters
Kind Old Daddy
Sirs:
You usually refer to the British Monarch as “George V,” and couch the rest of the reference in language which suggests the outlook of a Kahlege Kid from the Bible Belt, rather than of the only newspaper with a modern orientated intelligence published in the Anglo-Saxon tongue.
Realize that “George V is the most unassuming Englishman alive, not a snob, and speaker of probably the only unaccented English in the world. He runs with natural ability a job not of his own choosing, which your Brain Trust would bungle in a day. Stretch every American’s brain far enough to grasp that the monarchy is a different thing from the man who is King, and that British royalist sentiment has little to do with the blah-haw-haw which selected Englishmen, usually pabliticians, spill through the cigar smoke at Hands-Across-the-Sea dinners.
Quite sincerely, when you are rude to the present occupant of the Throne, you touch the kind old daddy, not of the aristocracy, but of millions of impoverished, overtaxed Englishmen in the middle classes who see in the King’s outlook on life one of the few remaining pieces of sentiment they can still permit themselves.
G. OVENDALELondon, England
Roosevelt & Lindbergh
Sirs:
I desire to point out what I think is an error in your judgment. In TIME of Feb. 19 under Aeronautics you compare Roosevelt’s popularity and Lindbergh’s. Among all my friends I know not one who has more than a passing interest and little admiration for Colonel Lindbergh, but they are all enthusiastic about our President.
You know better than I how quickly people tire of being saturated with publicity about any “fair-haired boy” type of personality.
Among ordinary people who actually bring up their own children the Lindbergh custom of going off to Asia or Europe whenever a new baby is born is not at all conducive of goodwill.
From a flying standpoint I personally believe he is not at all outstanding, even giving him credit for the hop to Paris, which was foolish when you consider that the plane he used is condemned by the Department of Commerce as unsafe. . . .
WILLIAM CORBETT Brookline, Mass.
Col. Lindbergh’s N. Y.—Paris plane was never condemned by the Department of Commerce as unsafe. It was barred from commercial use only because it held an experimental license. About one hundred sister ships (Ryan Brougham monoplanes) are still in service throughout the land.—ED.
Sirs:
TIME, Feb. 26, p. 10, “The Democrats of the House were bitterly determined that the nation’s No. 2 hero should not be heard criticizing the nation’s No. 1 hero for the latter’s peremptory cancellation of all domestic airmail contracts.”
No. 1 hero on whose say-so—TIME’S, the nation’s, or the Democrats’?
KARL CLINTON Syracuse, N. Y.
Sirs:
I protest your designation of No. 2 hero to Colonel Lindbergh. . . .
To millions of our countrymen and American youth our beloved Lindy remains No. 1 Hero, who, by his modesty and good sense, his refusal to capitalize his fame, his shunning of publicity rather than ever seeking to bask in the limelight, is a model that many of our public men might well pattern after.
Had his wise counsel been heeded instead of subjected to a rebuke by an upstart of a secretary, today six army fliers might well be alive, instead of a sacrifice to party politics. . . .
JESSE B. SAGER St. Louis, Mo.
Sniveling Barrymore
Sirs:
We wish to protest most vigorously against the sentence in your Feb. 19 review of the cinema Carolina, wherein you say: “. . . Lionel Barrymore plays a sniveling old Confederate veteran . . .”
For your information, sir, we would have you know that there were no ”sniveling” Confederate veterans. With more perspicacity you might have said, “The sniveling Lionel Barrymore played a Confederate veteran.”
NASH BURGER JR. W. B. HAMILTON JR. Jackson, Miss., C. S. A.
“Insolent Pedanticism” Sirs:
I am not attacking TIME’S excellent reporting, but feel that the following sentiments cannot go unexpressed. When one reflects just how vital a thing language is, one realizes that, after all, this is serious.
Dr. McClenahan’s attitude with regard to English grammar is the type of blinded, presumptuous pedagogism that should not be tolerated in a Board of Education [TIME, Feb. 26]. For his “purism” the Doctor can doubtless cite any number of authorities—except the language self.
“Correct English” is an unrealistic, pedantic legend, and the quicker we get rid of it, the better. For authorities I refer the Doctor to any elementary course in linguistic science, and to Dr. Edward Sapir, [Sterling professor] of the Yale University Department of Anthropology and Linguistics and head of a committee to bring out a New English Grammar to describe the language as it really is instead of for harassing school children with artificial, pseudo-classical prescriptions and “rules”—or to anybody who has at least an inkling of the true nature of language and its principles.
The split infinitive is a natural English locution found in the best writers (e. g.. Byron, Carlyle, Browning). Greek used singular verbs with neuter plural subjects: the English tendency to do the opposite is caused by psychological and linguistic forces whose subtlety and complexity Dr. McClenahan probably never dreamed of, and an arbitrary interpretation of which even a trained linguistic scientist might hesitate to attempt.
It is time language was dealt with with a little more scientific reverence and a little less insolent pedanticism.
G. STEVENSON New Haven, Conn.
Sirs:
If you quoted Philadelphia Purist Dr. Howard McClenahan correctly on p. 44 of TIME, Feb. 26, isn’t there some question whether or not Princeton’s ex-Dean Mac himself indulged in a solecism when he said: “Such grammatical mistakes are inexcusable . . .?”
Is a mistake in grammar ever grammatical?
Would not Purist Mac have been more pure, less “solecistic,” even at the risk of being somewhat didactic, or even pedantic, had he said, ”Such errors in grammar are inexcusable . . .?”
Far be it from me to cast aspersions upon, or even question, Grammarian McClenahan’s syntactical rectitude.
Please understand that I am merely asking for information from TIME.
E. R. STONAKER Rochester, N. Y.
Dean v. Rat
Sirs:
Your reference (TIME, Feb. 19) to Dean William Hane Wannamaker of Duke University sitting “mousy quiet” during assembly of Duke University students in revolt, reminded me of a story, ratty not mousy though it is of the Dean and Duke.
On Nov. 17, 1931 I was attending a banquet in the handsome Gothic union building at Duke University seated between Dr. Few, Duke’s goateed president, and shrewd, clever Dean Wannamaker. It was the occasion of the installation of a Sigma Nu Fraternity chapter at Duke.
Early in the banquet a rat, the size of a young kitten, appeared from under a radiator and Dr. Few, arising to the occasion, attempted to fight the rodent with a tray stand, finally felling the rat with the well-placed heel of his patent leather shoe.
In the course of the toasts the charter for the new chapter was presented, after which, as toastmaster, I presented Dean Wannamaker, who opened his remarks by suggesting that “no one could say the charter had not been properly ratified.”
His sense of humor is traditional at Duke.
CHARLES EDWARD THOMAS Indianapolis, Ind.
Wellman’s Kitten
Sirs:
Your report regarding the passing of Walter Wellman is accurate enough, as far as it goes, except for the statement that a wireless message was sent from the America saying the kitten had jumped overboard and was rescued by means of a rope [TIME, Feb. 12]. No such message was sent. I should know, because I was Wellman’s wireless operator.
As a matter of fact, the cat did not jump overboard. When we took off the kitten acted very queerly and we attempted to put it aboard a yacht by means of an empty canvas ballast sack and a long line. However, as we drifted over shoal water, this attempt was abandoned and the kitten went along with us. He settled down after this incident.
You are also inaccurate in stating that only four messages were sent from the dirigible by wireless. I cannot remember the exact number now, but numerous messages were sent to the shore stations at Atlantic City and Siasconset, Mass. At least a dozen more were sent to the steamer Trent, while she was following us prior to picking up our crew.
As far as I know, you are correct in stating that the America was the first airship to communicate with the ground by radio and, I believe, the writer was the first air-going wireless operator. The equipment used was a very crude affair, compared with modern radio equipment, but served its purpose, being very useful in effecting our rescue. This set was built in England and was admitted into the U. S. under bond. After our return it was shipped back to England and thus was lost a very interesting museum piece. However, during the War I saw the key of this set in the basement of the great radio station at Arlington, Va. I do not know how it came to be held out.
JOHN R. IRWIN (JACK IRWIN) Hayward, Calif.
Rochester Setters Sirs:
If a dog bites a man. . . .
Well, if a man owns two of the best English setters in the U. S., which happens to be the good fortune of a Rochesterian, Mr. R. K. Richardson, would that not be news to the many lovers of this breed?
In your report of the Westminster Kennel Club’s recent show in Madison Square Garden (TIME, Feb. 26), you do not say a single word about this popular breed of dogs, but it might interest you to know that Rochesterian Richardson’s two English setters went “Best of Breed” and “Winners Bitches” in this particular show.
We Rochesterians feel slighted.
MARTIN P. DUNSMUIR Rochester, N. Y.
In the show were more than 50-odd breeds, each of which had a “best,” not all of which could be reported.—ED.
“Duck,” “Soapy,” “Fig” et al.
Sirs:
Your issue of Feb. 12 gives credit to a rainy football game of 1923 for the baptism of “Ducky” Pond, whereas . . . The Hill students of that time know that he bore the name “Duck” when he was helping Hotchkiss beat The Hill some three or four years before.
You would have us believe that it must have rained Lux during a track meet to christen Harvard’s old runner “Soapy” Walters, that it takes a warm moist spring to name a “Bud”‘ Weiser, a long hot summer to make “Dusty” Rhodes, the big-league ball player, or a Oriental climate to grow a “Fig” Newton; whereas probably any one knows that those names, like Topsy, “just grew.” A boy named Pond probably is called “Duck” in grade school, unless unfortunately he should happen to be a “Lily.”
I shall be glad to agree with you, if you wish to make a settlement, that it was a coincidence that of all the players who saw action that day, it should be a “Duck” who proved to be most capable of navigating the waters of Soldiers Field.
SAMUEL H. HUMES Williamsport, Pa.
Puzzled, Annoyed, Disgusted, Sick Sirs:
With reference to your issue of Feb. 5, particularly that part reporting the “seizure” of gold, it would be interesting to know if others too are fed up with Senator Glass and also your “editorializing” or, properly, “sniping” in TIME’S news columns.
I am sick of both. If Glass is so damned feeble why does he not resign, and if you are dissatisfied with Roosevelt’s monetary policy why not come out into the open honestly and say so instead of coloring your reporting?
Glass is a senile has-been, once a good man all admit, and it is regrettable that his dotage overtook him before he could do what John Sharp Williams did.
As for you and TIME’S owners, you represent the small group with money which will resist stubbornly and blockheadedly to the very last any effort to change the evil state of affairs in America which Roosevelt is so admirably battling. Your colored reporting on the Morgan testimony was revolting. Your effort to work up sympathy for an old —* rolling in money who was too blind and grasping to contribute toward the expenses of the very government which was trying to prevent his kind from being exterminated was disgusting, and unfortunately there are more counts against you of the same nature.
Really, it is all very puzzling—you men must be in your daily life honest, intelligent and educated or you would not be where you are, but having in your hands an instrument of publicity reaching thousands of readers you drop your principles and resort to sneaking actions which you would scorn in your private life. . . .
Another thing, small but telling—in several recent issues you have run an advertisement from Heinz under the topical head “Victuals” which in no way is distinguished from the news text. If there is a difference I was too annoyed to hunt for it. I was tricked into reading that ad. I like to read advertisements but I prefer to be persuaded to read them, not have trickery do it. It was not an accident that the ad appeared in the manner it did. It was calculated and at the same time it was theft. Can you get around that? No possible explanation you can give will absolve you from that dirty piece of work. . . .
Stop being a bloody sneak.
ANCEL BAIRD Riga, Latvia
Let Reader Baird mend his manners. The late John Sharp Williams retired from public life aged 69, died at 78. Virginia’s Senator Glass is hale, vigorous, clear-minded at 76. That he continues to oppose President Roosevelt’s monetary policies, as does many another U. S. citizen, may scarcely be taken as proof of senility. As for advertising “trickery”: Are any other readers unable to see at once that the Heinz copy is advertising?—ED.
Singer Thomas’ Managers
Sirs:
Anent Mr. Wagner’s indignant protests against charges of unfairness and discrimination towards Mr. John Charles Thomas because of his nonappearance at a scheduled recital, the matter is not as simple as Mr. Wagner would have us believe [TIME, Feb. 26].
Mr. Wagner selected the local manager. He had an obligation to determine his financial responsibility in advance. When he placed Mr. Thomas’ recital in the local manager’s charge (and note that Mr. Wagner used the term “local manager”) he took upon himself a responsibility to the artist’s patrons that he and the artist could not escape. The prestige of the artist secured the subscriptions of the patrons, not the reputation nor the ability of the local manager.
Mr. Wagner places the fee of the artist before the responsibility of himself and of the artist to the public. Both Mr. Wagner and Mr. Thomas are placed in the position where they can protect themselves; the generous public who support both but which cannot safeguard its interests is left out of consideration.
Mr. Wagner had a cause for civil action against the local manager if the fee were not paid as per contract. He could have demanded cash in advance or the filing of a bond for the payment of the fee. He did neither. Mr. Thomas’ patrons suffered discomfort, inconvenience and perhaps financial loss through no fault of their own. Custom, in the forming of which the public has no voice, cannot absolve the artist nor his manager from responsibility.
THOMAS F. DALY New York City
*Libel deleted.—ED.
ncG1vNJzZmismaKyb6%2FOpmaaqpOdtrexjm9vb2tjboZwuMStq56qo2K6or6MamlmaWlogXA%3D