Letters, Oct. 14, 1940

St. Peter & Astrology

Sirs:

Not for purpose of correction but for your own information, I am offering the following comment on your very friendly account of myself in your issue of Sept. 23.

At St. Peter, Minn, the working man who raised the query about Government spending had exactly the opposite intent from what is indicated. He was arguing for unlimited Government spending. In my reply I indicated that there was a limit to Government spending, and that when men were fully employed and the factories were busy, further increases in Government spending would bring inflation, lack of balance and eventual grief, especially to the farmers.

The other point has to do with astrology and numerology as hobbies. I never was interested in numerology. In the case of astrology, I was interested in the possible effect of the moon and the planets on weather. I obtained, therefore, the heliocentric longitudes of the planets from the Naval Ephemerises and the geocentric longitudes from an Astrological Ephemeris. The mathematics of astrology is simply Geocentric Astronomy. Was it possible that the angle of the planets to the earth might determine weather, or was it more probable that the angle to the sun might determine weather? I was never able to prove either one definitively.

When the subject of astrology has been brought up, I have argued that a belief in astrology as a guide to life would lead to a fatalism that might cause many individuals to accept hard times as the foreordination of the stars, instead of struggling to master their fates.

Incidentally, I never drive a car at night, or any other time, to clear my brain.

I do not play tennis before 7:30 in the morning.

Oh, well!—it is impossible to correct all the cockeyed stories. Moreover, it is obvious your slant is friendly, so I don’t mind.

HENRY A. WALLACE

Democratic National Committee Indianapolis, Ind.

— TIME’S correspondent who was present at the curbstone colloquy in St. Peter evidently did not overhear correctly. For Candidate Wallace’s elucidation of the other points, TIME is grateful.—ED.

Hitler at Buckingham Palace

Sirs:

Please note the enclosed picture from TIME, Sept. 23, and explain how Hitler got to Buckingham Palace in time to help clear away the debris. Maybe he didn’t miss the bus after all. . . .

CARL A. MCNAMEE Minneapolis, Minn.

— TIME concedes a resemblance (see enlarged detail); but evidently Britain’s King, Queen and Prime Minister (in the same picture) did not notice it.—ED.

President or Vice President?

Sirs:

Prompted by your excellent article about Henry Wallace (TIME, Sept. 23), I am writing in the interest of establishing a historical fact.

When President Roosevelt accepted his nomination by radio in the early morning of July 19, he made a slip of the tongue which may forecast history.

He said to the Democratic Convention, “I express my gratitude for the selection of Henry Wallace for the high office of President of the United States.”

There is no doubt in my mind about the slip. Five of us were listening to the address together. . . .

Freud respects the truth in tongue slips. . . . Personally, Henry is all right with me.

ROBERT GUNNING

Editor Every Week Columbus, Ohio

Sirs:

I HAVE JUST SENT THE FOLLOWING TELEGRAM TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN EARLY CARE OF THE WHITE HOUSE: “WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE IN TIME MAGAZINE [SEPT 23] AND STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ANDRESEN OF MINNESOTA ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE YESTERDAY IN BOTH INSTANCES STATEMENTS QUOTING ME WITH REFERENCE TO THE POSSIBLE RESIGNATION OF THE PRESIDENT IF HE IS REELECTED. IN MY STATEMENT I NOT ONLY DID NOT QUOTE THE PRESIDENT BUT EVEN AS REGARDS MY PERSONAL OPINION I REQUESTED NO QUOTATION OF MY OPINIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE PRESIDENT. THE REPORTING NOT ONLY VIOLATES THE ETHICS OF JOURNALISM BUT IS A PART OF THE DISHONESTY THAT IS BEING CARRIED ON IN THIS CAMPAIGN TO ELECT WILLKIE. I AM SENDING YOU A COMPLETE COPY OF OUR CONFIDENTIAL RELEASE TO OUR MEMBERS BY AIR MAIL.” MY PURPOSE IN SENDING THIS WIRE TO YOU IS TO ASSURE YOU THAT I DO NOT IMPUTE TO TIME MAGAZINE UNETHICAL REPORTING AS A JOURNALIST NOR IN ANY WAY AS AN EFFORT TO SUPPORT EITHER THE PRESIDENT OR MR. WILLKIE. YOU VERY PROPERLY BUILT YOUR STORY AROUND THE ARTICLE WHICH YOU REFERRED TO AND WHICH WAS CARRIED BY AN IOWA NEWSPAPER.

MY CONDEMNATION IS DIRECTED TO THOSE JOURNALISTS WHO ARE MISUSING MY RELEASE TO THE MEMBERS OF OUR NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES, NAMELY, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF GRAIN COOPERATIVES AND NATIONAL FARMERS UNION LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE. YOU WERE WOEFULLY INACCURATE IN REPORTING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION.

M. W. THATCHER

President, National Federation of Grain Cooperatives

Chairman, National Farmers Union Legislative Committee St. Paul, Minn. >The American Farm Bureau Federation claims only 400,000 family memberships, estimates 1,600,000 individual members, not 2,950,000 as TIME erroneously reported.—ED.

Camerons Sirs:

The following cablegram was received here Sept. 21:

EDINBURGH, SEPT. 21, 1940

MAYOR, CAMERON, MISSOURI

THE CAMERONS OF SCOTLAND SATE THE TOWNFOLK OF CAMERON,

MISSOURI. WE ARE DELIGHTED AND

PROUD TO LEARN THAT ONE OF THE

DESTROYERS IS TO BEAR THE NAME

CAMERON. IT IS A REMINDER OF THE ENDURING FRIENDSHIP OF U. S. A. AND BRITAIN AND OF OUR COMMON INTEREST IN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM. ALL BRITAIN IS GRATEFUL TO THE PEOPLE OF U. S. A. FOR THEIR HELP AND THE CAMERONS ARE THRILLED BY THE KNOWLEDGE THAT A CAMERON FROM THE UNITED STATES WILL JOIN IN DESTROYING ON THE SEAS THE ARCH ENEMY OF FREEDOM.

CAMERON OF LOCHIEL CHIEF OF CLAN CAMERON

J. C. SLOAN

Mayor Cameron, Mo.

Pro-British, Anti-British

Sirs: TIME is no longer impartial-free. In my opinion it is pro-Ally, pro-British, pro-war— and has done all it can to panic us into war. Hence, I will under no condition renew my subscription to TIME.

VIRGIL MALCHER Chicago, Ill.

Sirs:

I have been for many years an interested reader of TIME. I am, however, becoming thoroughly disgusted with [TIME] because of the German propaganda—I can describe it as nothing less—that it is putting out under the guise of World War news.

W. L. SCOTT

Ottawa, Ont.

Sirs:

May I commend TIME for its masterly summaries of what is going on in Europe. . . . In later years, when history makes its audit, your reports will be invaluable.

DANIEL BLOOMFIELD Boston, Mass.

Sirs:

If you would get back to reporting the news, instead of running a British propaganda sheet, I would be interested in your magazine again. I had to vomit quietly at some of your rewrites of the British propaganda stories.

GEORGE B. BARNES Boston, Mass.

Sirs:

… On pp. 22 and 23 of your Sept. 23 issue, there are eleven photographs of London as it is today—a great city undergoing the throes of its rebirth, or its death. As you present it, it is a quivering shell. This may or may not be the truth—much as we value the truth, there are moments when silence is better. If there is a woman you care for, you do not follow her into the maternity ward with a camera, nor snap a close-up of her on her deathbed.

Maybe these photographs of London today are really the product of a producer without prejudice. Certainly they would be gleefully passed by any German propagandist.

MRS. ROBERT LE ROY Glen Head, L. I.

> Not German but British censors passed ten of the eleven pictures Reader Le Roy dislikes.—ED.

Fierce Feeling

Sirs:

Your book reviewer [TIME, Sept. 23] did a nice piece on Thomas Wolfe, except for that last word—”Relax!” If Tom Wolfe had been capable of relaxing would he still have given American letters some of its most burning, vigorous prose-poetry? Fierce feeling was his forte. Let’s let it stand at that.

RICHARD K. TUCKER Indianapolis, Ind.

Canadians All Sirs:

In reply to your question, “How do other young Canadians feel?” apropos of Mr. Whitehouse’s letter (TIME, Sept. 23), I think the following may be of interest:

Such people as Mr. Whitehouse certainly exist in Canada. I was like that and so were most of my fellow University of British Columbia students two or three years ago. Now, most of us are in the Army or planning to enter it. The reasons may be deduced from Mr. Whitehouse’s letter itself.

1) “The price of Canadian national existence within . . . the British Empire” is not “a world war every quarter-century” because we live in the British Empire but because we live on this planet, where humanity is imperfect and wars are frequent. You have to choose between fighting or being conquered.

2) Because a spineless English Government sacrificed Czecho-Slovakia and the Spanish Loyalists, why refuse to support a strong English Government and lose Czecho-Slovakia, the Spanish Loyalists, Poland, France and England into the bargain? Even Mr. Whitehouse may admit that England is worth something and that Mr. Churchill is not Mr. Chamberlain. And would Mr. Whitehouse have been any more willing to fight if England had supported Czecho-Slovakia or Republican Spain? I doubt it.

3) Mr. Whitehouse is right about the literary and artistic sterility of Canada. But that is a state of affairs that can only be remedied by a strong national feeling—not by turning the country into a parasitic growth on the underside of the United States. . . .

A. E. CARTER Vancouver, B. C.

Sirs:

… I am a young Canadian, aged 22, finishing off a final year at McMaster University in Hamilton, about to commence my period of enforced military training. . .

Whitehouse is entitled to his view. I am sorry he feels that way, for he reveals himself as being not only unpatriotic, but ignorant. He does not know what a magnificent country Canada is. He regards himself as a radical, fearless sage, who cannot be appealed to on the grounds of patriotism, who sees that the British Empire is a ball-and-chain rather than an ideal. But he has no right to make sweeping statements which are wholly devoid of truth, and then to claim that he speaks on behalf of other young Canadians.

I was glad to see conscription for Home Defense. I wondered why such a measure was not automatic at the start of the war. To date, all regiments have been quickly filled by volunteers, most of whom are itching to be shipped overseas where they can join in the Battle of Britain alongside of their English cousins. I think the mutual defense pact between the U. S. and Canada is a wonderful thing, but I do not confuse it with the idea that we might soon become part of the U. S. Your excellent article on Canada, published in TIME a few weeks ago, accurately outlined our stand between England and the U. S. We are Canadians first, British next. We declared war on Germany when England did, because we so desired.

Already I have lost some friends in England. They knew they might never return, were ever proud to die in the effort to drive Hitlerism forever from the earth. Before 1941 has ended, I hope to be with them, for better or for worse.

SCOTT BURRILL

Hamilton, Ont.

Sirs:

… If young Whitehouse is a real person he … is an argument for birth control.

H. W. BROWN

Winnipeg, Man.

Sirs:

. . . Arthur T. Whitehouse no more expresses the feelings of Canadian youth than a sick calf. . . .

ORIAN E. B. Low Ottawa, Ont.

Sirs:

. . . The phrase “we young Canadians about to be conscripted” is, of course, misleading. Fit Canadian men, between 21 and 45, who are not now in any branch of the active service or militia, will receive 30 days’ military training to enable them to help defend Canada, should that situation ever arise. This is the “conscription” referred to. …

PETER MCLINTOCK

Regina, Sask.

Sirs:

I have just returned from three weeks at Military Camp as a member of the 3rd Battalion of the Black Watch, Royal Highland Regiment of Canada—and from my close contact there with 600 of the finest specimens of young Canadian manhood I cannot allow the anti-British opinions of Arthur T. Whitehouse to go unchallenged (TIME, Sept.

23).

These Black Watch recruits—of highly varied social, vocational and racial backgrounds, representing a true cross section of Canadian Youth—constitute in themselves a violent negation of the Whitehouse logic. Their theme song on camp route marches was There’ll Always Be An England—and it arose from both hearts and lips. They are also genuinely fond of the U. S.—and after the destroyer deal I heard more than one rendition of God Bless America. To infer that these sentiments are incompatible is nonsense. . . .

J. ALEX. EDMISON Alderman, City of Montreal Montreal, Que.

> First week’s poll of Canadian letters on Reader Whitehouse: eight for, 102 against.—ED.

Young Australian

Sirs:

Anent your footnote to Canadian Arthur T. Whitehouse (TIME, Sept. 23), would you be interested in how young Australians feel regarding their present setup with Great Britain?

Although ethnologically we are the most British of the Dominions, temperamentally we are by a long stretch the least. It was not from any innate love of their English cousins that over 400,000 Australians volunteered in World War I, nor for the same reason that many more are volunteering now. We realize that if England falls we no longer have the protection of the English Fleet nor any husky Monroe doctrinairing next-door neighbor to take us under her wing.

It seems to me that whatever the outcome of the present conflict, Britain no longer will be able to maintain the naval strength necessary to control our part of the ocean. . . .

The only alternative for Australia and New Zealand is to work out a deal with the U. S. along the lines suggested by Clarence Streit in “Union Now,” namely, that Australia and New Zealand form a union with the U. S., a union having a constitution limited to the following:

1) Common defense

2) Common citizenship, and since this union could function most effectively as a single economic unit it should have also

3) Common currency

4) No inter-union tariff walls.

The average American will ask: “How do we come out on this deal?” First, what would you give? All you need to give is a guarantee to Australia and New Zealand against naval blockade. So long as we can obtain all necessary war materials we can take care of any invaders.

To give teeth to this guarantee it would be necessary for an effective portion of the U. S. Fleet to base at Singapore where it could serve the extra purpose of guarding your vital East Indian sources of tin, rubber, etc. Now, what would you get?

The U. S. would double its land area and vastly increase its economic resources. . . .

You would find room for the profitable investment of much of your chronic reserves of idle capital and idle man power.

You would gain a population and domestic market of ten million educated, English-speaking, self-supporting individuals with a pioneering democratic background analogous to the best that is American.

And, what is most important, you would consolidate for all time your position as the great Pacific power. …

CHAS. J. THOMSON Long Beach, Calif.

Complete Story

Sirs:

Statistically interesting, perhaps, was your account in TIME, Sept. 2 under Press of the political affiliations of the daily press in 1936 and in prospect for 1940, but factually it doesn’t prove a thing. I’m a little fed up with the policy-making powers daily newspapers pretend to possess. . . . The nation is well covered with hometown newspapers that issue in small quantities once a week, but every one of them is closer to the people than any daily newspaper ever named. A survey among weekly newspapers, conducted in the manner of the poll which you report on daily newspapers, would show that in 1936 they were pro-Roosevelt by a large margin. The results of the poll for the coming election would, I predict, be a more nearly accurate forecast of what the nation is planning to do in November. . . .

You have always been careful to present a complete story, and I think you owe it to your pro-Willkie readers to give it to them in this instance, rather than leave them with a false sense of security in the attitude of the nation’s press. As a Willkie supporter, I’d like the complete story myself.

SHEPLEY CLEAVES Editor

The Stoughton Chronicle Stoughton, Mass.

> Such a poll was taken last August by The American Press (trade journal for publishers of weekly newspapers). It showed rural weeklies’ editors 63% for Willkie (about 6,449 papers to 3,725 for Roosevelt). — ED.