Coolidge v. Hoover
Sirs:
I notice in TIME. Dec. 16, that Hoover is asking for appropriations for another commission. This "beaver man,'' as you called him last year, is undoubtedly starting things moving. Many of us old Timers are wondering if he is not undertaking too much. Personally I prefer the policy of his predecessor, who sat still, said nothing, and acted, when he acted, chiefly on the recommendations of big bankers—men who knew what they were doing.
PHINEAS LAWRENCE
Fall River, Mass.
Hurley's Faith
Sirs:
TIME YOUR JUDGMENT HAS FLED TO BRUTISH BEASTS IMAGINE A ROMAN CATHOLIC SECRETARY OF WAR IN A KLU KLUX ANTI SALOON ADMINISTRATION TIME ACT YOUR AGE PATRICK HURLEY DOES NOT PROFESS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC FAITH.
FREDERICK J. KIENLE
Brooklyn, N. Y.
Sirs:
Not that it matters very much, but Secretary of War Hurley is not a Roman Catholic. If he were, what a blow to Col. Bill Donovan, Mr. Hoover's ex-friend, who had to be shelved because he confessed that faith. It may be that the Catholics claim Pat Hurley, but I know better. As I say, not that it matters except as such things are made to matter by the press, to which your magazine stands as a shining corrective. . . .
ALFRED A. AMBLER
Washington, D. C.
Secretary of War Hurley's parents were Roman Catholics. His friends in Tulsa believe he is a Roman Catholic. He declines to deny or confirm a nationwide news report which stated that he is a Roman Catholic.—ED.
Sirs:
In your last week's issue [TIME, Dec. 9] you characterize me as "of the Boston Globe." That would have been true three and a half years ago. I left the Globe in September, 1926.
The error is quite unimportant, and I would not call it to your attention had I not been reliably informed that your identification of me as at present a unit in the Globe organization is regarded by the Globe management as "most unfortunate." I assured my informant that I would ask you to correct the error. . . .
GARDNER JACKSON
Boston, Mass.
House v. Senate
Sirs:
Speaker Longworth's remarks on the Senate and the general merriment in the House at the idea of the Senate doing "business," (TIME, Dec. 16) raises an interesting question.
The House of Representatives undoubtedly gets through its business with commendable speed, although often we come to believe that it is accomplished through log rolling and the docile follow-the-leader voting of men who respect the machine which elected them. In the Senate again, business is undoubtedly oftentimes outrageously delayed, but we often suspect that the delays are caused by independent-thinking Senators who refuse to vote till they have aired the entire question.
It would be very interesting to hear from TIME readers on this question: which is better for the country, the speedy legislation of the House, or the delayed, much debated, sometimes contrary actions of the Senate?
WM. G. COOPER
Cleveland, Ohio
House Flayed
Sirs:
The picture of "Mister Speaker" frontispiecing Vol. XIV, No. 25 (Dec. 16, 1929) is not TIMEWORTHY.