Cigarets Sirs:

. . . With the cigaret and pipe apparently as much a part of wearing apparel as shirts and cravats, why are no photographs ever published showing a President in the act of smoking? . . .

If the President himself considers that it is neither bad taste nor beneath the dignity of his office to use tobacco, surely he would not object to the consistency of being seen in the act of using it. ...

A. B. MADISON

Fowler, Kan.

Dearth of smoking pictures is due merely to failure of cameramen to click. Only smoking-picture of Mr. Roosevelt in the files of Manhattan agencies is here shown (see cut). It was taken seven months before his election, at a Manhattan luncheon for the Boy Scout Foundation. At Mr. Roosevelt's left is Barron Collier, car card advertising tycoon and real estate speculator who last month got a three-month moratorium on his $17,000,000 debts, under the Hoover bankruptcy law.--ED. As an olrltime consistent reader of TIME I appeal to you for some information to satisfy my curiosity. Hearst's "Washington Chatter'' first First Lady in U. S. history to do so First female resident in the White House to smoke: "Princess" Alice Roosevelt (at first surreptitiously, later in public). First First Lady to smoke: Anna Eleanor Roosevelt. But she cares little for tobacco, uses it to put her guests at ease.--ED. Man of the Year Sirs: For the Man of the Year I nominate our Chief Justice, Charles Evans Hughes.

As far as I am able to learn he has made a perfect record. He has upheld the dignity of the judicial branch of the country in the most hectic year in American politics. He has not blurted. Sagaciously he has made no appearance to the public outside the administering of oath of office to President Roosevelt, which was his duty. And finally he has in my opinion cooperated with the present administration by weighing the element of time against its perpetual offspring --change. C. H. McWlLLIAMS Wilmington. Ohio Sirs:

I have religiously read the perfect newsmagazine since the memorable presidential campaign of the Brown Derby whom you caused me to love, and have been for two seasons a usually rapt and rarely disappointed listener-in on the "March of TIME" which IS the best of informative radio broadcasts.

For Man of the Year I fervidly nominate one justly compared with Galileo. All praise to the Happy Warrior, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John D. Rockefeller and other good men and strong. But History, if not TIME, will record as Man of the Year, George Frederick Warren (TIME, Nov. 27).

JOHN P. CAMP

Gainesville, Fla.

Sirs:

I nominate as the Man of the Year (for that matter of the "century") Rev. Charles E. Coughlin, Detroit, Mich.

His direct and straightforward attacks against "legal(?) czars" of the past, for the betterment of the millions in the U. S. A. and abroad, puts into total eclipse such former idols as our ex-Governor. The history of this era, when written, will record the name of Rev. Chas. E. Coughlin in bold relief.

THOS. MEADOWCROFT

New York City

Sirs:

With reference to letter in your No. 22 of the 27th November regarding TIME'S 1933 Man of the Year; how about the President of this Republic for the 1933 honor? On the 19th inst. President Gomez completes 25 years of service to his country in that position, and on the day mentioned there is going to be national rejoicing, and in fact everywhere where Venezuelans and others who know this beautiful country gather together.

To enumerate all of President Gomez's accomplishments since he has occupied the Presidency of this country would be too lengthy a task. . . .

The wagering in the letter I refer to above makes me laff, as if the accomplishments of the President of this country were widely known and thoroughly realized, the betting in his favor would probably exceed a million to one!

S. W. L'ESTRANGE

Caracas, Venezuela

For an account of the Venezuela candidate see p. 15.--ED. James Rolph. v. Charles Lynch Sirs:

In your issue of Dec. n: "Charles Francis Potter suggested to The First Humanist Society of Manhattan that 'lynching' be changed to 'Rolphing.' " "

In the Dec. 18 issue you twice used the word ''rolphing" to designate what formerly was called lynching. I appreciate your prompt adoption of my suggestion. . . .

It is possible that readers of the Dec. 18 issue may question the use of the word "rolphing" to take the place of the word "lynching." and you might wish to give them the historical back-ground as I summarized it.

CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER

The First Humanist Society of New York. New York City.

To Preacher Potter, praise for neat nomenclature. Extracts from his "rolph" speech follow:

Now is an excellent time to rename the crime of lawless execution, for who better deserves to have his name attached to that crime than Governor James Rolph? He defended the crime; he condoned it. He even praised it. ...

Never before in American history has such a high official taken such a stand. He deserves to have his name attached to it hereafter. . . .

The taking of human life without due process of law should never have been called "lynching" anyway.

Charles Lynch of Virginia deserves the eternal gratitude of all Americans, for he was . . . largely responsible for the instructions given the Virginian delegates to the colonial congress whereby the Declaration of Independence came into being.

In 1780, when he was colonel of a cavalry regiment, and about to lead his men to repel the British, he stopped long enough to arrest the leaders of a Tory conspiracy and, as justice of the peace, to sentence them to jail. . . .

Thereafter, emergency acts of justice without court procedure were referred to as "Lynch law." In early California days and in the South just after the Civil War, Lynch law was carried so far that men, both white and Negro, were summarily executed without benefit of fair trial.

But Colonel Charles Lynch of Virginia does not deserve to have his name coupled with such lawless procedure as the taking of men's lives by crazed mobs today.

To Governor James Rolph, who praises such acts, should go the honor of having his name attached to them. --ED. Thankful Maybelline

Sirs:

... As the manufacturers of the largest-selling, best-known mascara in the world, Maybelline, an absolutely harmless, non-smarting eyelash darkener that contains no dye or aniline derivative, we have suffered untold damage to our old established business by the ambiguous publicity given out concerning the Tugwell bill. In a recent issue of the Paramount Newsreel, Professor Tugwell told a truly appalling tale of injuries caused by a poisonous preparation, but neglected to give its name as "Lash-Lure" or to state that it was a dye, merely calling it an eyelash "beautifier," and concluding his speech with the dreadful remark, "This is the kind of stuff you women use on your eyelashes!"

You can imagine how utterly damaging this was to us, inasmuch as the phrase "eyelash beautifier" is practically synonymous with our trade name Maybelline, due to our product being the most extensively advertised mascara on the market for the past 16 years. . . .

In reply to our protest wired Professor Tugwell and President Roosevelt, Tugwell wrote that he and the department regretted any damage caused us, and that a press dispatch had been immediately issued revealing the name and nature of the offending product, also stating in reference to our product Maybelline that ". . . we have never heard of any reports of injury caused by it." Considering that Maybelline has been used consistently every day by millions of women in all parts of the world for over 16 years, this last statement was indeed complete exoneration of our product. However, it did not reach the millions who heard the newsreel speech, therefore, you will realize with what relief and satisfaction we read your discriminating account of the Tugwell propaganda (TIME, Dec. 4), knowing that the real facts in the case would reach your many intelligent readers.

Again thanking you for the inestimable service you have rendered us and all other reputable manufacturers by your careful and authoritative presentation of the news, we are

THOMAS L. WILLIAMS

Maybelline Co. Chicago, 111.

TIME appreciates the spirit of Maybelline's Williams' letter. But thanks, if any. must go to TIME'S subscribers who pay $5 a year for precise newsreporting.-- ED.

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