Executive's Son

Sirs:

As a subscriber to your magazine I would like to know by what virtue is the divorce and subsequent marriage of Elliott Roosevelt entitled to about two columns under National Affairs?

Certainly he is not connected in any way with National Affairs. His only popularity is because he is the Chief Executive's son. By no stretch of the imagination could it be considered a National Affair, no more than John Doe's similar action could be considered one.

I think it was an error of judgment to place it there instead of under People where it belongs.

ANTONIO MARTOCCIO

Rutland Heights, Mass.

Reader Martoccio's point is well-taken. Elliott Roosevelt is not, per se, a figure of national consequence. But a divorce and speedy remarriage in the nation's first family was conspicuous if not important. And historians of the future will point to the Roosevelt-Donner-Googins switch as the "first White House divorce." Had TIME reported it elsewhere than under The Presidency, the place would have been Milestones, not People.--ED. Rules for Asterisks

Sirs:

Maybe an old time cover-to-cover reader will tell a comparatively recent newsstand convert what to do on meeting an asterisk.

There are rules for everything.

Is it common practice to read all of the footnotes first? Or do you find it better to read the article through to the end and then to pick up the footnote the asterisk or dagger refers to?

. . . I've been waiting for August, thinking it a good month to bring this up. Then in September I'll take up my reading in the proper manner.

JIM TWYMAN

Cincinnati, Ohio

TIME footnotes are appended, whenever possible, to ends of paragraphs, or at least ends of sentences, so that they can be read at natural breaks or pauses in the story, like asides in a play. The recommended procedure is to read each footnote as its asterisk, dagger or double asterisk appears. Any able reading eye should then be able to find its way back to the point of digression in the main text. Less nimble eyes can be aided by staking out the point of digression with forefinger or pencil. Readers too engrossed by the main discourse to break off are advised to reverse this process. Let them pounce on the asterisk with finger or pencil, finish the story, then return and clean up the footnotes. Badly written and edited is any TIME account wherein a footnote contains information essential, rather than ancillary, to the story.--ED. Publisher Thomson & Senator Long

Sirs:

I notice in your issue of July 31 under the caption of "Anti-Long Merger," a discussion of the New Orleans newspaper situation, also some discussion of me personally in connection with my own relations to Senator Long, and also the relations of our papers to the local political organizations. . . .

I find in your article the statement that "Senator Long won over the Item & Tribune, whose Publisher James McIlhenny Thomson had formerly opposed him, by giving the Thomson papers all State advertising, and by forcing State employes to subscribe."

In this you print a statement which is libelous, untrue and which attributes venal motives to me in the conduct of these papers. That is not a nice thing to do in view of the fact that the circulation of TIME naturally reaches a great many people who have no acquaintance with me or with the papers which I publish. . . .

I doubt that in all of our career we ever more vigorously opposed any man who ran for office than we opposed Senator Long for every office that he ever ran for. It happened to be purely accidental that we supported and helped elect the present Mayor and Commission Council of the City of New Orleans; that we supported and helped elect to office the present Governor and the present State administration of Louisiana, and that to the extent of our papers' ability and my own ability, I supported and perhaps in a little way helped elect to office the President of the United States. Likewise I supported and helped elect to office United States Senator John Overton from this State.

So it might truthfully be said that most of those who are in political office in the city, the State and the nation, with the exception of Senator Long, owe a little something to these papers and to me. Senator Long owes me nothing politically and I owe him nothing politically.

After having unsuccessfully supported Senator Ransdell against Senator Long, I never came in contact with the Senator until he came out with a proposition to call a cotton conference in New Orleans, whose purpose was to stop the planting of cotton in the South for one year, and thereby take the surplus of cotton off the cotton market.

When I read of this no-cotton proposition I thought that it was Senator Long's own idea, and although we were virtually not on speaking terms I felt that my duty to my State and section demanded my support of this movement. So in this matter the Senator and I buried the hatchet and worked in a common cause. . . . Gradually-following this movement, personal friendly relations developed between Senator Long and myself.

At no time has Senator Long ever had the slightest confusion in his mind regarding either my own individual position, or that of my papers, and at no time, in turn, has there been any confusion in my mind as to the fact that the Senator takes his own public position, conducts his own policies, makes his own statements and leads his own life without any responsibility on my part for what he says, does or thinks.

We try not to judge every newspaper in New York on the basis of whether they have supported or agreed with Mr. Hoover, Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Walker, or been with or against any other public man or public influence in New York. It might be enlightening if some of our friends who edit papers in New York would stop and think and then take the same view of people who own and edit papers in Louisiana. . . . You are at perfect liberty to print, say or think anything you want about him, but you have no right to put in your publication a statement to the effect that the Senator bribed me. . . . JAMES M. THOMSON"

Publisher Item-Tribune New Orleans, La.

In the Senate's investigation of the Broussard-Overton election contest, witnesses testified that State employes, cogs in the Long machine, took "voluntary" subscriptions to Publisher Thomson's Item. The money was deducted from their paychecks and paid in lumps to the newspaper. It was understood that these subscriptions were taken in a contest, the best salesmen getting trips to Washington. Senator Long testified: "Since the counsel wants to know, we collected for the States when they were with us, and for the Progress when they were with us, and for the Item also. . . . Yes, sir, we help our friends when they are with us." TIME apologizes for implying that circulation-getting by the Long machine was Publisher Thomson's price for his support. Favors from politicians must not always be construed as solicited. Sometimes, unsought, they are embarrassing. Last week Publisher Thomson's papers were gently anti-Long when, after a short period of martial law in New Orleans, an investigating commission at last opened six of the ballot boxes used in last November's election, found wide proLong discrepancies.--ED. TIME-FORTUNE Building Sirs:

I wish to compliment the exhibit which you are showing at the Century of Progress in Chicago.

Your building, as well as the manner in which it is being conducted, is deserving of more than passing comment. You are to be congratulated.

L. D. PHELAN

Aberdeen, S. Dak.

Sirs:

... As a subscriber to both TIME and FORTUNE I want to express my appreciation for the care and expense incurred by TIME in erecting & maintaining such a beautiful building solely for the convenience of their readers.

After having become a bit groggy gazing at all the various exhibits, marvelous and colorful though most of them were, it was part of our daily routine along about dusk, to slip over to the terrace of your ideally situated building. There content to sit and lazily gaze out over the lagoon and watch the various buildings take on new life and beauty as the dazzling electrical effects were turned on. .

DWIGHT L. STRONG

Trenton, Mich.

Sirs:

TIME'S gorgeous building at the Century of Progress stands out as sharply above the ordinary at the Fair as does TIME in the magazine field. In design, decoration, attractiveness, and, best of all, in solid comfort it is simply great. I found it hard to move on again, once I had entered the welcome portals. . . .

RALPH ELVIN

Indianapolis, Ind.

It is a grand rest you have given to a sun-baked Evidence of Progress. Many thanks. ... It is well conceived, well located and extremely courteously and pleasantly run. I have been in here over half an hour, fascinated by the people who pass through--who stop to read, write and enjoy your hospitality. It is like a college commencement and to prove that your idea is sound--there is an air of clubdom, democratic clubdom prevailing. DAVID H. McA. PYLE

Far Hills, N. J.

Eagles Not Barred

Sirs:

In your issue of TIME for July 17, p. 11, the statement is made that "Eagles are barred from the park because they kill so much small game. This quotation refers to Yellowstone National Park.

Such a statement is erroneous not only lor Yellowstone but for every other national park. There has been no control of eagles in any of the national parks, and no native species of animal is ever "banned'' from any of the parks.

Each national park is a wild life sanctuary in which every form of wild life native to the park receives total protection. Occasionally some species benefits from the changes wrought by human developments and becomes so numerous as to threaten the existence of some rarer, less adaptable, species. At such times it may become necessary to adopt control measures to reduce the predatory species, but such control measures are only temporary and local in their nature. . . .

A. E. DEMARAY

Acting Director Department of the Interior National Park Service Washington, D. C.

Brogdexing

Sirs: For the reason that this company discovered, developed, and applied the combination of the process and the air conditioning system that made possible shipments by steamer without refrigeration, we have read with considerable interest the article entitled "Paraffined Oranges" under the heading "Transportation" on page 14 of the July 17 issue of your excellent periodical. The Brogdex System is not new, as it has been in use on oranges, lemons and grapefruit in packing houses in California, Florida and Texas for a great many years--more than 65 million boxes of citrus fruit having been Brogdexed during that period, a large percentage of which was shipped by rail without any refrigeration whatsoever. Lemons, as well as oranges, were included in the shipment referred to in the article, and in addition to that, Brogdex is applicable to apples and pears--large quantities of both of these fruits having been Brogdexed in Washington and Oregon. One thing that interested us particularly was the reference to the "sickly pallor" of the fruit. You will no doubt be interested in knowing that Brogdexing does not in any way change the natural appearance of oranges or other fruit, except to improve it by adding lustre to the surface of the fruit, thus maintaining its freshness of appearance. . . H. F. KEENAN

Vice President Brogdex Co. Pomona, Calif.

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