Letters

Herewith are excerpts from letters come to the desks of the editors during the past week. They are selected primarily for the information they contain either supplementary to or corrective of news previously published in TIME.

Praise

Sirs:

Congratulations for your splendid news magazine. You have revolutionized news-writing. Before TIME appeared, I had quit reading daily papers and news magazines, except at long intervals and then cursorily, because they were so voluminous and dull. I had to wade through many pages that did not interest me to glean some few items that did.

TIME has changed all that. Once a week it brings me the news boiled down and expressed in such a delightful and humorous style as to fee interesting, even fascinating. Perhaps the best compliment I can pay you is to state that in TIME I read news that did not interest me in the least in any other publication.

Now, one little protest: Why do all the American news-publications make such a fuss over the Prince of Wales? He gets almost as much handclapping in the U. S. as the President. What has he ever done to merit such applause?: True, he may be a very intelligent, magnetic and democratic young man, and a good sport. The same is true of thousands of young Americans and young men of all other civilized nations, but they have to accomplish something before they are lionized in the press and on the screen. What has the Prince done? Is it possible that we Americans are degenerating into royalty-loving snobs? Shades of Washington, Paine, Jefferson and Franklin, forgive us!!

M. B. BUTLER

Taft, Calif.

For an unfavorable estimate of Edward of Wales, Subscriber Butler is referred to a letter from Miss Mary Elizabeth Robinn of Boston, published in TIME, Nov. 16.--ED.

Mrs. Eddy Defended

Sirs:

Your magazine TIME has been very highly recommended to me by a friend; so recently while in San Francisco I purchased a copy with the idea of sending in my subscription.

After reading it very carefully, I came to the page on Religion and I would like to draw your attention to Rabbi Stephen Wise's comment on the "Erection of a Shrine to Buddha" in Central Park, New York City [Dec. 14 issue, p. 26]. It reads: "I wonder whether the proposal to erect a statue in Central Park to Buddha comes from Will Rogers. It is quite worthy of his fertile wit. Buddha! What's the matter with Mahomet ? What's the matter with Confucius, to say nothing of Bab? And there is a sect called the Mormons, and there was Mrs. Eddy. What's the matter with any or all of these? Let's have a nice quiet lane in Central Park, etc."

I, as an American citizen, believe in justice and I say with deepest sincerity that I consider it not only very unjust but inconceivable in this day and age of enlightenment to compare Mrs. Eddy, a true American, and her works, which stand for the very ideals upon which America was founded, with Buddha, Mahomet, Confucius or Bab.

MYRTLE L. NOBLE

Sacramento, Calif.

The attention of Mrs. Noble is called to the fact that it is Rabbi Wise, not TIME, who offended her. --ED.

Two Societies

Sirs: In your issue of Jan. 25, it appears (pp. 9-10) that the "Sons of the American Revolution" recently honored the memory of Edmund Burke at a commemorative dinner in the City of Washington; also referring to the Rupert Hughes incident (with the responsibility significantly charged to the New York World), which was quoted as saying that it was uncertain "which was the sillier, Rupert Hughes or those . . . who took the outbreak seriously enough to get vocally angry about it." The officials of TIME, it is believed, may safely be included among those who hold that organizations or societies, like individuals, may be distinguished or blamed solely for their own achievements or blunders, as the case may be. And TIME, it is thought, recognizes its responsibility to record in its columns accurately the facts. The "Sons of the American Revolution" did not so honor Edmund Burke's memory; it is not believed they wish to receive public credit for so doing. And, as for the Rupert Hughes incident, wherein you, with the New York World, seem to think the majority of the participants were silly--they were not of the "Sons of the American Revolution."

This Society [Sons of the Revolution] has refrained from including its views in regard to this episode in the nation-wide comment that has followed the same. Mr. Rupert Hughes was invited to attend that dinner to speak on the public services of Edmund Burke; the only statement made at the time was by me, in effect that Mr. Hughes was a guest of the Society and as such privileged to express any views he thought fit for the occasion.

GEORGE RICHARDS

President

Sons of the Revolution Washington, D. C.

Bungles Anew

Sirs: While TIME for Jan. 25 brings a decent apology for and a good explanation of the seeming impertinence of the Article "Encyclical" in Time of Jan. 4, it bungles anew.

In "Golden Rose," p. 29, we read the ludicrous statement: The Golden Rose "with its vase stands 95 cm. (46 in.) high." One metre (100 cm. = one metre) is 3 ft. 3.37 in. ; 1 cm. is therefore .3937 in.; 95 cm. would be 37.4015 in. Where does your computer get the additional 8.5985 in. ?

In the footnote on p. 30 we read: "its--the Old Catholic Sect's--modern strength dates from 1870, when there acceded to it many Roman Catholic bishops who could not agree to the doctrine of papal infallibility promulgated and accepted by the Vatican Council." I think that I know modern church history fairly well, but I never heard or read of even one "Roman Catholic Bishop" who did not accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. If your learned Editor of "Religion" knows of many Roman Catholic Bishops who did not agree to the doctrine of the Council, may I ask him to prove that even one Bishop of the Church left the Church because of the promulgation? I will be much obliged to him.

J. H. MUEHLENBECK Rome City, Ind.

95 centimeters equal 37.4015 inches.

Subscriber Muehlenbeck is right. TIME'S editor of RELIGION knew that certain Roman priests and professors had been excommunicated for their adherence to the Old Catholic tenets. He glossed over the fact that the many minority bishops disagreeing with the 1870 Council's doctrine of ex-cathedra infallibility had been whipped into line.--ED.

Wants Map

Sirs:

Per inclosed clipping, your foreign correspondent seems to be fond of the expression "as every one knows"; also "see previous numbers of TIME." Why not request him to eliminate unnecessary verbiage?

Also it seems to me that his "stuff," "Celebrities Dine," in TIME of Jan. 11, 1926, is not real foreign news or worth-while reading except for those who enjoy Town Topics, The Police Gazette, etc.

Personally I wish that TIME were printed with clearer type on unglazed paper like the World's Work, and that it had a map with each number showing the places mentioned therein.

H. W. CLARKE

Washington, D. C.

Enthusiast

Sirs : I believe in enthusiasm. For a year I have been broadcasting the superiorities of three possessions--my Gardner Eight-in-line car, my daughter's Charleston and my weekly copy of TIME.

Imagine my chagrin on reading your report of the New York Auto Show (TIME Jan. 18) when I found no reference to the Gardner in your list of Eights for less than $2,000. The Gardner is $1995, is one of the first Eight-in-line cars ever made and--well, I rank it among eights as I rank TIME among periodicals. . . . A. W. CORRIGAN

Cleveland, Ohio

Popes

Sirs:

As a reader of your wonderfully liberal weekly newsmagazine TIME, I wish to call your attention that it is very much regretted that you have retracted such a true statement as to the claims of "Pope Pius XI," the assumed Vicar of Christ, on p. 2, Jan. 25 issue. Therefore, I sincerely hope that you will find a little space in your magazine, and print these lines for the good of all of us, and especially for the benefit of Subscribers William Boyd, B. V. Hubbard and the rest in their line.

Please notice, that true histories openly tell that the Pope claims absolute right not only over civil and spiritual matters of his own faith, but that he claims and assumes much higher authority on this earth. The history speaks of such claims as follows:

[Warring] Pope Martin V. [1417-1431] said of himself in his address to his ambassadors to Constantinople:

"The most holy and most happy, who is the arbiter of heaven and the Lord of earth . . . the master of the universe, the father of the kings, the light of the world" (Rome As It Is, p. 181).

Archbishop Stephen of Petraca, at Council of Lateran, said of Pope Leo that he had "power above all power, both in heaven and on earth" (Decretals of Gregory III [731-741; Gregory XIII, 1572-1585]).

On authority of the papal council [Jesuit], Cardinal Bellarmine [1542-1621] said:

"All the. names which are given in the Scriptures to Christ, even these same names are given the Pope" (B. II, Ch. 17).

Pope Nicholas [5 Popes of this name; Nicholas V, 1447-1455] :

"The Pope is God, and therefore man cannot judge him" (Dissertation 96, Chap.7).

J. ELMORE BORA

Syracuse, N. Y.

Some Medieval and early Modern Popes did claim papal suzerainty over civil and temporal affairs. But recent ones have not. Nor does Pius XI.--ED.