(2 of 5)
CHAS. J. CAMPBELL
PAUL REVELLE
Seattle, Wash.
—⊙—
Suckers
Sirs:
The letter of H. K. Philips, American Legion publicity man, regarding your cooperation with World Peaceways, unintelligently censored your commendable efforts (TIME, March 23).
TIME Inc. need not worry that "good U. S. citizens" are condemning it for giving space to World Peaceways advertisements, even the "HELLO SUCKER" ad which prompted that tinhorn outburst from the Legion's ballyhoo director. Rather, "good U. S. citizens stand . . . united" in applauding the timely courage and vision that has prompted World Peaceways, assisted by FORTUNE et al., to picture the stark horror of war and what it does to those who fall its victims.
I can appreciate the Legion's defense of crippled veterans in the face of unjust ridicule. Who would not rise to their defense? But "HELLO SUCKER" certainly does not ridicule. It deplores the tragedy of the veteran so maimed. It presents only the truth, harsh and startling. In war times, words are never minced. Why mince them now when peace is a great nation's wish? . . .
And shame on a National Director of Publicity for not knowing that all World Peaceways ads appear in donated space.
How noble of Mr. Philips to remind TIME Inc. that it "would be performing a real public service" if it "would refuse to stoop again to such profit-taking." He must have overlooked that very nifty bit of American Legion profit-taking achieved this year over a Presidential veto in Washington. For that superpatriotic boosting of the national debt, the Legion makes all of us, as taxpayers, even greater "suckers." . . .
SEWARD A. COVERT
Tryon. N. C.
∙∙∙
Sirs:
Regarding the controversy about World Peaceways publicity, what do disabled veterans think? Their opinions are more important than Mr. Philips'.
JOHN A. BENNETT
Indianapolis, Ind.
TIME, too, would like to know what disabled veterans think of the Peaceways "Suckers" ad.—ED.
—⊙—
Investment Trusts
Sirs:
Unjust and misleading is TIME'S slapstick article in the March 9 issue under caption "Investment Trusts.". . .
Having thoroughly studied U. S. investment trusts and being a stockholder in some, I consider the flippant, finger-snapping attitude of TIME in reporting so unintelligently on this broad and complex subject to be inexcusable effrontery.
Your unqualified statement: ". . . An investment trust's only justification is a record better than the market averages"—is inaccurate in my opinion. . . . Your assumption that capital appreciation is the only objective of investment trust managers again shows ignorance of the subject. . . .
In conclusion let me say that I know, and all readers of your article are entitled to know, that it is based on a report published by a statistical service agency. . . .
If TIME wishes to abide by its slogan, "Curt, Clear, Complete" it will refrain from publishing second-hand information of superficial nature culled from unreliable sources.
WILLIAM F. SHELLEY
Boston. Mass.