(3 of 3)
Subscriber White, who in his youth posed for Rodin's Athlete, owns a notable collection of modern art at his Ardmore, Pa. home, has often expressed his disapproval of Author Craven as a critic. But let Subscriber White reflect that while Critic Craven flayed Picasso and Matisse, he praised Van Gogh, Cezanne, Thomas Benton, George Grosz, Jacob Epstein— moderns all.—ED.
Fosdick Flayed
Sirs:
The confession of Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick that he lied to the Unknown Soldier, in TIME, May 21, is sending a wave of horrified shock across the country. Dr. Fosdick doesn't lack the ability to express himself clearly, so we must take him at his word: that he made untrue statements with the intent to deceive. If this is true, hasn't Dr. Fosdick forfeited his right to come before the world as a great teacher? Even if he should elucidate to the extent that he has changed his views since the War, doesn't this convict him of such loose talk and superficial opinions either then, or now, or both, that we may feel that in a few years he may tell us that he was lying to us now? . . . He stands for Christianity and a Christian civilization and then says in effect that we cannot have it and defend it. No person in his right mind wants war, but to thousands of young people to whom Dr. Fosdick is almost an oracle, his statements serve only to befog and bewilder and discourage. . . .
C. C. ENGEL
East Stanwood, Wash.
More letters on Dr. Fosdick and the Unknown Soldier in Letters Supplement No. 10, available this week. Also letters on Socialist clergymen, Cab Galloway in London, Negro violinists, Matto Grosso missionaries, U. S. aviators in Colombia, dry-ice in the mouth, etc. etc. Address requests to TIME'S Circulation Department, 350 East 22nd Street, Chicago, Ill..—ED.
"Remember Smahl!"
Sirs:
TIME is to be congratulated for its heroism for publishing on p. 13 of the April 30 issue the article concerning Hero Alton Smahl, who, after a seven-year battle drew victorious blood from the hide of the New York Telephone Co. for charging him for phone calls he proved in court he did not make.
Hero Smahl and editors of TIME should be happy to learn that others have profited by Dr. Smahl's battle and TIME'S publicity of the case of Dr. Smahl v. the New York Telephone Co. Last month a friend noted an overcharge on his bill for his business phone. He paid what he believed he owed. This month he again was charged for the amount he refused to pay last month. I informed him about the article in TIME relative to Dr. Smahl. Across his bill he wrote "TIME, April 30th issue, page 13," and sent in what he felt was the just charge, omitting; payment for the charge he claimed unjust. The bill hasn't come back. . . .
No longer need subscribers wage long, futile arguments in the business offices of the telephone company. They need only write across unfair bills—"TIME, April 30th issue, page 13, Remember Smahl!"
K. A. NELSON
Pasadina, Calif.