(2 of 4)
Sirs: In your issue of Jan. 25, it appears (pp. 9-10) that the "Sons of the American Revolution" recently honored the memory of Edmund Burke at a commemorative dinner in the City of Washington; also referring to the Rupert Hughes incident (with the responsibility significantly charged to the New York World), which was quoted as saying that it was uncertain "which was the sillier, Rupert Hughes or those . . . who took the outbreak seriously enough to get vocally angry about it." The officials of TIME, it is believed, may safely be included among those who hold that organizations or societies, like individuals, may be distinguished or blamed solely for their own achievements or blunders, as the case may be. And TIME, it is thought, recognizes its responsibility to record in its columns accurately the facts. The "Sons of the American Revolution" did not so honor Edmund Burke's memory; it is not believed they wish to receive public credit for so doing. And, as for the Rupert Hughes incident, wherein you, with the New York World, seem to think the majority of the participants were silly—they were not of the "Sons of the American Revolution."
This Society [Sons of the Revolution] has refrained from including its views in regard to this episode in the nation-wide comment that has followed the same. Mr. Rupert Hughes was invited to attend that dinner to speak on the public services of Edmund Burke; the only statement made at the time was by me, in effect that Mr. Hughes was a guest of the Society and as such privileged to express any views he thought fit for the occasion.
GEORGE RICHARDS
President
Sons of the Revolution Washington, D. C.
Bungles Anew
Sirs: While TIME for Jan. 25 brings a decent apology for and a good explanation of the seeming impertinence of the Article "Encyclical" in Time of Jan. 4, it bungles anew.
In "Golden Rose," p. 29, we read the ludicrous statement: The Golden Rose "with its vase stands 95 cm. (46 in.) high." One metre (100 cm. = one metre) is 3 ft. 3.37 in. ; 1 cm. is therefore .3937 in.; 95 cm. would be 37.4015 in. Where does your computer get the additional 8.5985 in. ?
In the footnote on p. 30 we read: "its—the Old Catholic Sect's—modern strength dates from 1870, when there acceded to it many Roman Catholic bishops who could not agree to the doctrine of papal infallibility promulgated and accepted by the Vatican Council." I think that I know modern church history fairly well, but I never heard or read of even one "Roman Catholic Bishop" who did not accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. If your learned Editor of "Religion" knows of many Roman Catholic Bishops who did not agree to the doctrine of the Council, may I ask him to prove that even one Bishop of the Church left the Church because of the promulgation? I will be much obliged to him.
J. H. MUEHLENBECK Rome City, Ind.
95 centimeters equal 37.4015 inches.