Harlow

Sirs:

What a shock it was to receive TIME, Aug. 19, and find Jean Harlow's picture (dis)gracing the front cover. I thought TIME was a bit selective in choosing subjects for their cover, but this instance proves me wrong! From the vast numbers of Hollywood stars from which to choose, surely you could have done better than this. . . .

VERNA L. FREEMAN

Rahway, N. J.

Sirs:

On TIME'S cover, July 29, Harvard's Harlow Shapley; Aug. 19, Hollywood's shapely Harlow.

LOUISE M. WHITE

Newtown, Conn.

Sirs:

Smartness and simplicity, indeed, dress TIME'S frontage each week. However, when I pulled my copy from the newsrack this morning I had to look twice, hoping that what I first noticed was an optical illusion, but, alas, it was an illusion all right, but a real one.

No abstainer am I from the cinema, on the contrary a heavy patron, but why, when TIME honors this industry with such prominence, this selection to clutter up a half million homes, when any one of a half-dozen other top-notchers mentioned in this issue would do far more justice to both filmdom and TIME? . . .

J. RICHARD BURKE

Portland, Ore.

Sirs:

. . . When I went to the newsstand this week ... I was completely shocked to see the picture of Jean Harlow on the front cover of the Aug. 19 issue, in such an undignified position.

Movie stars' faces are all right in the movie magazines, in pictures, and in their proper place, but not on the front cover of TIME. ... I feel . . . that the Aug. 19 issue of TIME has been disgraced. I sincerely hope that this incident will not occur again.

ROBERT B. SMITH

Washington, D. C.

As in the past, TIME will continue to depict on its front cover newsworthy cinemactresses when they make news.-- ED.

Burroughs to Schwellenbach Sirs: On p. ii of the Aug. 12 issue of TIME appears the statement--"Senate snoopers found that plump Vice President Fred S. Burroughs of Associated Gas & Electric had a salary of $60,000 paid by one of plump Howard C. Hopson's holding companies which in turn charged other companies in the system an aggregate of $150,000 a year for their respective shares of Mr. Burroughs' services." I wish to advise you that this statement is absolutely untrue. The statement referred to is undoubtedly based-on questions which were asked me by Senator Schwellenbach on the occasion of my appearance before the Special Committee of the Senate appointed to investigate lobbying activities.

On my return to New York from the Washington investigation I looked into this matter of inter-company charges for my salary and wrote Senator Schwellenbach to clear up the implications of this unconfirmed Washington report. I attach hereto a copy of my letter to the Senator.

In view of the fact that you have been instrumental in disseminating misstatement of fact, I will appreciate your publishing this letter as well as the copy of my letter to Senator Schwellenbach.

F. S. BURROUGHS

Yice President

Associated Gas & Electric Co. Ithaca, X. Y.

Herewith TIME reprints Mr. Burroughs' letter to Senator Schwellenbach, which has been turned over to the Senate Committee for "action":

Dear Senator Schwellenbach: You will recall that on the occasion of my appearance last week before the Special Committee of the Senate appointed to investigate lobbying activities, of which you are a member, you questioned me at some length on the subject of whether my services had been billed to the member companies of the Associated Gas & Electric System at the amount received by me, or whether there had been a ''loading" by the so-called "Hopson companies" to cover overhead expenses, office rents etc. You had apparently been advised, that although there was no such "loading" in the case of charges for my services during 1934 and 1935, that the services had been charged for in 1933 at 2 1/2 times the amount received by me. In the absence of exact information on the subject, I was unwilling to undertake to dispute your statement with regard to 1933 figures, although I believe that I stated, that if there had been any such "loading" in 1933, it was contrary to my understanding of the facts. Since my return to New York I have made it a point to have the matter investigated and I find that in 1933 the aggregate charge to Associated System companies for my services was $59,667.50, which you will see was not only not greater than the amount that I was paid, but was actually slightly less. In 1932, during which year I devoted seven months of my time to the Associated System, having become a Vice President of Associated Gas and Electric Company on June 1 of that year, the charge for the seven months to Associated companies for my services was $34,583.83. If I am correct in understanding that your questioning was based on a memorandum handed to you by Mr. Stuart Ross, I feel that an appropriate notation should be made on the record of the erroneous character of Mr. Ross's information. As the record now stands I believe there is nothing to show that you were relying on information obtained from somebody else and it appears that the statement was made on your own responsibility. I am sure that you will not want so important a misstatement of fact to appear in the record with nothing to indicate that the error was not your own. F. S. BURROUGHS

New York Citv

To Senators, "Crawfishing"

Sirs:

On p. ii of your issue of Aug. 12, you state that in making a speech I ''blustered." You also say that in a subsequent statement on the Floor I ''crawfished."

The statement that I "blustered'' is of course gratuitous, and intended to be unfriendly. The statement that I ''crawfished" is based entirely on your printing of only a part of what I said, although you must have had access to the complete statement, which was as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, on Monday I spoke on the Omnibus Banking Bill. I understand that some Members of the other body feel that certain of my remarks reflected upon them. Of course, I was discussing issues and not personalities. In view of the understanding which certain Members on the other side have, I desire to say that I intended no reflection on the steadfast patriotism, the absolute integrity, and the high purpose of any Member of the United States Senate. On the actual issues involved, in the statement I made on Monday, I adhere absolutely to what I then said." . . .

T. ALAN GOLDSBOROUGH

First District of Maryland

House of Representatives

Washington, D. C.

Senators who had refused to sit in conference with non-blustering Representative Goldsborough on the Omnibus Banking Bill unless he retracted his remarks about them considered that he had "crawfished" sufficiently in the foregoing statement to resume their conference with him. --Ed.

Life-&-Death Struggle Sirs: . . . Under the heading "The White Front" (TIME, Aug. 12) we are now told that Dutch editors are speculating on whether some sort of understanding does not exist between the Netherlands Government and British Prime Minister Baldwin. It seems incredible that Dutch editors, or editors of any nationality, could possibly believe that an understanding does not exist. But the Anglo-Dutch alliance is not aimed at Japan. On the contrary an Anglo-Dutch fleet in the South Pacific will prove an inestimable aid to the Japanese in the coming Pacific war. England is playing her usual game, gathering up allies for the next struggle. She can count on the assistance of all countries with kings, with the exception of Italy, because of the close relationships existing between the British Royal House and other European Royalty. It is George's way of earning his two million a year. Why not tell the American people the truth-- that they are faced with a life & death struggle with a powerful European and Asiatic coalition? Does anyone suppose Japan would be flouting the Nine-Power agreement if she did not have English sanction? England has said "go ahead," for soon it will be England's turn to demand favors from Japan--close co-operation in a war against the U. S. Where are America's friends? There is an alliance between France and Russia that will soon be a three-power pact with U. S. the third party. Instead of playing down Russia and ignoring France it would be smarter for TIME to be first on the bandwagon and start the cheering for America's potential allies. BARBARA FLETCHER

Victoria, B, C.

Sirs:

My compliments to TIME for the excellent article: "I Will Maintain!" (p. 17, Aug. 12), giving readers detailed information about The Netherlands' economics and its wealthy and shrewd queen; the noted statesman Colijn; the possessions in Indonesia which Japan covets; and "The White Front." All very interesting, particularly to those readers who follow foreign events closely.

(No other magazine or newspaper gives as concise, valuable and varied information as TIME.)

AUGUST FAST

Denver, Colo.

Disgusted Blue Bloods

Sirs:

Whence your information that Charles Francis Adams, Boston sports promoter (TIME, Aug. 19), is "distant cousin of onetime Secretary of the Navy Charles Francis Adams?" Look in the graveyard of any Boston newspaper to see if he is not a Jew whose name was changed by court decree, to the disgust of blue-blooded descendants of the second and sixth Presidents of the U. S.

CHAS. N. MORGAN

St. Petersburg, Fla.

Sirs:

YOU SAY CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, ONETIME OWNER BOSTON BRAVES, DISTANT COUSIN ONETIME SECRETARY NAVY. YOU PROVE IT.

WINTHROP C. ADAMS

Cohasset. Mass.

TIME based its statement on Sports Promoter Adams' frequent claim that he is an eighth cousin of the onetime Secretary of the Navy. Although the latter has never publicly denied the claim, his Cousin John Adams last week said: "I could name all the living members of various branches and Charles F. Adams absolutely is not of our family. I can assure you most definitely of that."--ED.

Percentage of Piety

Sirs:

In TIME, July 22, under Religion, you have quoted Chaplain Edward Aloysius Duff as follows: "By actual count and statistics, a larger proportion of Navy men and officers attend church on ship and on shore than do men in civilian life." Chaplain Duff fails to mention that neither the 1,700 midshipmen at the Naval Academy nor the recruits at the various training stations have any choice in the matter of churchgoing. They go whether they want to or not. This accounts for a large proportion of the percentage of piety of the Navy. I have never observed any large church attendances in any of the ships I have been attached to. Even at sea, when there was nothing else to do, there would be only 45 or 50 men out of a crew of twelve or fourteen hundred, which is certainly no large percentage. Even then unfair tactics were used as smoking and playing games were forbidden while church was being held.

The enforced church attendance at the Naval Academy has done more than anything else toward alienating naval officers from the church. There they are forced to put on uncomfortable full-dress uniforms and march to church each and every Sunday of the academic year. Very few, after such treatment, ever set foot in a church of their own free will after graduation. . . .

F. G. TINKER

Junior Deck Officer

(Also ex-Midshipman and ex-Naval Officer)

S. S. Christy-Payne

En route San Pedro to Balboa, C. Z.

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