Dapper

Sirs: , , ,

I read a brief statement in your valuable weekly as I returned from Chicago and was surprised that one of your writers would say I was ill dressed in Berlin [TIME, March 14]. While I am not an advocate of time-wasting performances, I was as well dressed as any of the other diplomats--not in Hitler uniforms of course. Not only so; my clothes fit me as well as anybody could wish. How such a view as was expressed in your journal.?

WILLIAM E. DODD

Washington, D.C.

To dapper Reader Dodd (see cut), TIME'S apologies.--ED.

Fall of Schuschnigg

Sirs:

In the terse, blunt style that makes TIME such good reading for us who want the story without the feathers, you write the epitaph to another little institution that apparently had to fall in the achievement of the Nazi dream. "Austria is Finished," TIME, March 21, tells all that's important, and it tells it well enough to keep a chap reading.

But of all the ironical covers! A full week after Schuschnigg's fall, and the end ot Austria as a sovereign independent State, along comes TIME with Schuschnigg, Chancellor of Austria," beaming all over your cover as though he were almost the man of the hour. . . .

JOHN GUILD NESBITT

Evanston, Ill.

Sirs:

Classic indeed is TIME'S boner in placing Schuschnigg's color photo on the cover and captioning: Chancellor of Austria. Inside, on page 18, you concede that Schuschnigg is out and that Seyss-Inquart has been "forced in.". . .

JAMES A. BISHOP

Mirror

New York City

Sirs:

DOES CURRENT COVER MEAN TIME MARCHES ON FASTER THAN TIME ?

LEIGH MITCHELL HODGES

Philadelphia, Pa.

TIME erred in captioning Dr. Schuschnigg's cover portrait "The Chancellor of Austria" and will continue to make such errors. Covers in color must be printed a fortnight in advance (TIME, Jan. 24).

Cover figures are chosen for timeliness, but Subscriber Nesbitt errs if he supposes that each is supposed to be "The Man of the Hour." When Dr. Schuschnigg was chosen, TIME'S editors could not anticipate that he would become so much more timely that Adolf Hitler would find it necessary to enter Austria.--ED.

Ardent Bostonians

Sirs:

Had TIME, about world's series time fall run a feature story on the Chicago White Sox with a picture of Luke Appling on the front cover as the sensation of the year, and had they in that story printed a mere paragraph or two stating that this wonder team had been edged for the pennant by the Yankees and that one Joe Di Maggio had a slight lead over Appling for batting honors, it would have been hardly less accurate than this week's surprising appraisal of the New York Rangers as hockey's most newsworthy outfit [TIME, March 14].

How come? Was the story written by an uninformed editor or by a Ranger fan? By all accepted standards of news values you are completely off base. . . . J. K. MACNEILL

Medford Hillside, Mass.

Sirs:

... I thought it strange, upon picking up TIME, to find the excellent painting of Davy Kerr staring at me. I thought to myself, "Where is Tiny?" I found Tiny [Thompson] and his ten years of great goal tending passed off in one sentence. I continued to read and I seemed to catch the idea that although the "well-seasoned" Bruins were leading by four points the Rangers were the better team. The "well-seasoned" Bruins (a team playing with six one or two-year major leaguers on its roster) have proved quite conclusively that they are the better team, by beating the Rangers in four "crucial" games, the last knocking them out of a chance for first place. . . .

THOMAS J. CARENS

Wellesley, Mass.

Reader Carens has the wrong impression. Goalie Kerr appeared on TIME'S cover precisely because the appearance of a new topflight goal tender is more newsworthy than the continuance of a veteran who has been top-flight for ten years.--ED.

Misplaced Muscat

Sirs:

Is TIME [March 14] correct in placing Muscat on the Persian Gulf?

F. L. EMERSON

Auburn, N. Y.

TIME'S National Affairs researchers were woolgathering. Muscat is on the Gulf of Oman.--ED.

Posters

Sirs:

I hope the New York World's Fair of 1939 may become the occasion for the birth of the American Poster. . . . Poster production in Europe [see TIME, Feb. 28 for posters in Spain] is decades ahead of poster development in this country, simply because European advertisers have learned the commercial benefits of being outrageously noncommercial in poster art. . . . We have nearly all of our posters drawn by "pretty girl" artists and by uninspired hack commercial artists who draw the same banal signs for everybody and for everything. . . .

DON HEROLD

New York City

Too Many

Sirs:

In TIME, March 14, in the section on People you had articles on three different Roosevelts. I think that's too many for one page.

JOHN GREENMAN

St. Paul, Minn.

"Bless Her!"

Sirs:

I am surprised that Mr. Monty Banks of Hollywood should take TIME to task for mentioning in an otherwise complimentary article about the British music hall performer, Gracie Fields, recently decorated by King George VI, that on the stage she is, of course, "vulgar."

I take several London papers and have been amused to see the way their writers used the TIME article as a peg on which to hang columns and columns about "Our Gracie." In the London Daily Express a four column analysis by James Agate is headed "IS GRACIE FIELDS COMMON?" The concluding words are, "She is common, vulgar, and low. Bless her !"

MARY ELIZABETH ROBBIN

Boston, Mass.

Mooney or Muni

Sirs:

Throughout your Tom Mooney account (TIME, March 21) you imply that there is a studied, histrionic quality in his behavior (apparently confusing Mooney with Muni). In the penultimate paragraph you dispense with implications and make the blatant statement that "Mooney ended ... as usual with a burst of tears, finally recovered enough presence of mind to pose," etc. Does this mean that a man who has not the tact, or art, to conceal his emotion on his respite from prison cannot seriously be considered a victim of injustice? . . .

EDWARD KATZ

Philadelphia, Pa.

It means nothing of the kind. TIME simply reported facts.--ED.

Probabilities

Sirs:

TIME erred in its article on Super-Bridge in the March 7 issue when it stated that to the poker crowd, the five-suit deck of cards opened new vistas of more easily filled straights. . . . With a four-suit deck, the chances of drawing the right card to the middle of a four-card straight are four out of 47; whereas, with a five-suit deck, the chances are only five out of 60. In other words, the probabilities would be .085106 in the former instance and .083333 in the latter. TIME, therefore, is nearly 18/100 of one percent in error and if the responsible party feels indebted for this information, I'll settle for one blue chip.

JOHN C. COLLINS

Madison, Wis.

But to poker players without Reader Collins' capacity for arithmetic, the five-suit deck opened vistas.--ED.

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