LETTERS: Cleopatra Selene

(2 of 3)

I notice in your issue of Apr. 13, Pages 26-27, some very interesting data regarding the rubber plantation industry. This data gives the viewpoint of the rubber consumer....

In 1922, the British Parliament decided to limit rubber production in the Empire to save the plantation industry from ruin as, at that time, millions of British people had invested in this industry hundreds of millions of pounds sterling. Many had waited from five to seven years before receiving any return from new plantations.

In 1921 the average price obtained throughout the year by one well-known con pany was only about 18¢ per Ib. for its rubber; and, as many companies could not produce at this price, it meant that within a short time most of the plantations would again become jungle. If this had happened, tens of millions of people in this country would have been deprived of the use of automobiles. If these companies had gone into the hands of receivers, there is little doubt that the American consumers of rubber would have bought up these plantations at a cost which would have been a great sacrifice to the original investors. After considerable delay, the British Parliament decided on the restriction of rubber production to save the rubber plantation industry. The following average prices of rubber over a period of years are taken from the report of a well-known rubber plantation company, dated April, 1924:

dated April, 1924 YEAR 1919 2/3 d. 1920 9 d. 1921 d. 1922 11 d. 1923 1/2 d.

Before the War, the price of 50¢ per lb. for rubber was not considered high. It is now about 44¢ per lb. I think I am correct in stating that the output of rubber from British territory is now 60% normal and not 50% as stated in your issue; also that the production at the end of this month will be increased to 70%. B. P. COULSON JR.

Home Again TIME Portsmouth, Va., New York, N. Y. Apr. 13, 1925.

Gentlemen:

In your issue of Mar 9. was published my letter calling attention to the improper spelling of the past tense of the verb "to broadcast." Just returning from abroad, I have noticed the publication of letters in TIME, Mar. 23 issue from two grammaticasters, viz: Mr. G. C. Miles of Princeton, N J, taking direct issue, and Mary Adda Reade of Oak Park, III., talking beside the point.

Authority for using "broadcast" as the past tense of the verb "to broadcast" may be found on page 279 of Webster's New International Dictionary, 1920. Also usage by 1,500 radio announcers in the U. S. and Great Britain and a dozen magazines representing the current radio art. The verb form was adapted 15 years ago by the U. S. Navy when a word was needed to denote wide dissemination of radio information to ships at sea. . .

If Mary Reade is joking, I chuckle with her. If not, she might refer to page 939 of Webster's New International Dictionary, 1920, giving one definition of the adjective "grammatical" as "of or pertaining to" grammar. Therefore to use the word "broadcasted" as the past tense of the verb "to broadcast" is properly referred to as a "grammatical" error. A. H. MILES