Dakota Rumor

Sirs: Rumors I have heard several times in North Dakota that President Hoover has a ranch in Stockton, Calif. On the gate is a sign--no white men employed. I would like to know very much if this is true, or just propaganda. HENRY SCHIPPER

Casselton, N. Dak.

President Hoover is one of several stockholders in Poso Land & Development Co., which operates a truck ranch--cotton, grapes, alfalfa, melons--at Wasco, in the San Joaquin Valley south of Stockton. There are no labor signs of any kind on or near this ranch.--ED.

Antiair Gunnery (Cont.)

Sirs:

While with the 51st Artillery, C. A. C. near Toul, France in 1918, I saw a lone enemy plane attack and destroy a captive balloon, miss a second, destroy a third, return and destroy the second, then fly home. The whole operation required but minutes, was done at a very low altitude (following a power dive) in broad day light, and in spite of the activities of anti-aircraft gunners stationed at balloon positions. I feel the same thing could be done today (TIME, June 23). I remember H. C. Barnes (then Major), onetime commander of our Battery "B" as the man whose answer to my question, as asked in keeping with an order from our commanding officer, was, "None of your . . .* business who this is, give me Mr. B. . . ." That was the answer of Major Barnes to Buck Private Myself, acting according to orders.

ORVILLE G. MELAND, D.D.S.

Haddonfield, N. J.

Vogue Infringements

Sirs:

We are, and have been for a number of years past, the attorneys for the magazine Vogue, of which Mr. Conde Nast is the publisher. There has been brought to our attention an article entitled "Nast Trick" [TIME, June 2] . . . which contains therein false and misleading statements and which, without justification, charges Mr. Nast with knowingly publishing over his own name in the May 24 issue of the magazine Vogue false statements with respect to the infringement of Vogue's copyright on its illustrations, decorations and other material. It is apparent that the article so published by you was based on erroneous information. . . .

The article published by you also said "There had been, it appeared, only one suit. . . ." Within the past four years suits have been brought for infringement of Vogue's copyright . . . against the following defendants:

Peerless Pattern Co., Inc.

Ogus, Rabinovitch & Ogus, Inc.

Elite Styles Co., publisher of the magazine Elite Styles.

Leading Dress & Costume Co., Inc. and H. Serwer, Inc.

Marion Dress Co., Inc. and H. Serwer, Inc.

Economy Service, Inc.

Sears, Roebuck & Co., and

Club Richman

Some of the cases above referred to were settled by the defendants therein before the cases were reached for trial and, in the cases tried, judgments were rendered in Vogue's favor.

During the last few years, actions, have also been brought in other parts of the United States on behalf of Vogue for infringement of its copyright, some of the defendants in such actions being:

Plotkin Bros., Boston, Mass.

Lynn R. Yaryan, Cincinnati, Ohio

Pach-Wolin Shop, Inc., Detroit, Mich.

Waite Silk Shop, Buffalo, N. Y.

Crowley Milner, Detroit, Mich.

Alton Fruchter, Inc., Ohio

Margaret McGraw, Cleveland, Ohio

The Nisely Co., Cleveland, Ohio

Some of the actions above referred to are still pending and awaiting trial in their regular course and the infringements complained of in such actions were, in many instances, published in magazines and newspapers. Among the defendants therein were art services, department stores and publishers. . . .

DE WITT & VAN AKEN

New York City

In preparing its report of June 2, TIME enquired of DeWitt & Van Aken for just such information as is now supplied regarding Publisher Nast's infringement suits. TIME gladly publishes this correction and sincerely regrets an injustice to Publisher Nast which resulted from a misunderstanding between DeWitt & Van Aken and TIME.--ED. Siam Disserved? Sirs: The editorial imagination must have run amok when writing the article on Siamese fighting fishes in TIME (June 30). Were it not for the fact that you render a progressive Far Eastern country a distinct disservice, your efforts would have been very amusing. I lived in Bangkok for ten years as a servant of the Royal Siamese Government and never have I seen your imaginary hall where natives conduct exhibitions of pugilistic ability between belligerent fishes. The Royal Siamese Government, many years ago, prohibited gambling in any form, the only exception being made in favor of the Royal Turf Club and the Royal Bangkok Sports Club on race days; and I can assure you fighting fishes did not race around the trackit was good Siamese and Australian horse meat that competed for the money. Fighting fishes are common in Siam, but their warlike exhibitions are timid affairs and certainly not public functions where natives wager their live stock and families on the outcome.

R. W. MENDELSONT, M.D.

Late Principal Civil Medical

Officer of Health

Royal Siamese Government

Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Sources of information for TIME's report included: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (56th meeting, 1926, pp. 213-226); and Some Fresh Water Fishes of Siam by Hugh M. Smith, present Fisheries Adviser to the Government of Siam, onetime U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries; the American Museum of Natural History.--ED.

Bubblenest Builders

Sirs:

. . . The article in the June 30 issue of TIME on the Siamese fighting fish was the best I have ever seen on the subject, but this fish is by no means uncommon in the United States. Mated pairs can be purchased from dealers for about $5 and can be kept with other tropical fish such as guppyis and sword tails.

Perhaps many of your readers might have been interested in the breeding habits of this fish. It is one of the Bubblenest Builders, native to Southern Asia. Sensing the fact that the female is about to spawn, the male's colors grow brilliant as he courts her, and in between caresses, he builds a floating nest of bubbles. This he accomplishes by taking a mouthful of air at the surface, which is coated with saliva, expelled as a bubble under water, and rises to form part of the nest, which is generally about six inches in diameter.

As the female ejects the eggs he fertilizes them, takes them in his mouth one by one and carefully places them in the bubblenest. After she has laid the eggs the female is through, and unless she is removed from the aquarium, her mate will kill her. He zealously guards the nest until the young are hatched, and even guards the young for three or four days until they have developed enough to care for themselves. Then, having performed his family duties, the male will turn cannibal and eat the young he has been guarding, unless he is also removed. He can then be reunited with his mate.

LESTER L. SWIFT

Cleveland, Ohio.

Snake Question

Sirs:

Returning from my wanderings, I began to peruse accumulated copies of TIME and came across a discussion in "Letters" which made it evident that your readers were very curious as to the modus operandi of the whale during his libidinous moments. . . .

TIME readers make me think of this story: A nice old lady visits the reptile cage at the Zoo; after studying a wriggling serpent at length, she asks the attendant: "Oh, mister, is that a male or female snake?" "Lady," replies the keeper, "that is a question that could only interest another snake."

ERIK LEV AALESUND

San Francisco, Calif.

Bloodless Colombia Sirs: In the issue of June 16, under "National Affairs," TIME says, commenting on the election of Dr. Enrique Olaya Herrera as President of Colombia: "It was a unique election in that no one was killed in the campaign, no one contested the victory afterward."

In February, 1926, Miguel Abadia Mendez was elected.

In February, 1922, Pedro Nel Ospina was elected.

In February, 1918, Marco Fidel Suarez was elected.

In February, 1914, Jose Vicente Concha was elected.

In February, 1910, Carlos E. Restrepo was elected.

In February, 1904, Rafael Reyes was elected

They were all unique elections in that no one was killed in the campaigns, no one contested the victories afterward.

TIME would have been UNIQUE in one more sense in these United States, had it commented properly, accurately, on Colombian affairs.

J. V. Du GAND.

San Francisco, Calif.

P. S. The last shot in a political uprising in Colombia was fired in 1902. We seem to be getting more or less used to our peaceful way of living.

TIME is glad to learn that shotless, bloodless elections are less unusual in Colombia than they were made to seem by President-Elect Olaya in a Manhattan speech last month, when he emphasized that during his election none were shot, that his election was accepted by all parties without bloodshed.--ED.

Sportsman White Flayed

Sirs:

TIME, June 30, "Animals."

Is it up to the sportsman of the United States to say whether or not Alaska shall pass certain laws? Since when have we elected men to office on their reputation as sportsmen. . . . Why should human lives be endangered to save a handful of the most ferocious mammals living in North America today?

Mr. White has been misrepresenting conditions in Alaska for some time. . . . Did not the Saturday Evening Post, a few weeks after publishing Mr. White's article on bears, have to retract and apologize to its readers for misstatements on Mr. White's part?

I lived in Alaska 20 years and when the citizens of that territory pass a law for the protection of their industries and of their very lives, let the people here in the States leave them alone. . . .

Let "Sportsman White" make good his boast of shooting "almost every bear on any given river in a week, thus cleaning out a habitat of about 100 square miles." I greatly fear the bear would win in the struggle for supremacy.

Alaska belongs to the United States and its development means much to our country. Do you think settlers wish to go there when our country prefers bears to settlers?

If the bear must have protection, why does not "Sportsman White" offer himself as a martyr to the cause and henceforth play personal guard to his "harmless" brownies?

L. WORDEN ROYAL

Pawtucket, R. I.

The "retraction" published by the Saturday Evening Post (issue of June 7) consisted of a letter from Sportsman White admitting he was technically incorrect in stating that all protection had been removed from Alaska's bears. He then analyzed what the "protection" amounted to: a closed season between June 20 and Sept. 1 on five small islands (not including large Kodiak, Admiralty, Chichagof and Baranof islands, the bears' principal homes) and on small sectors of the mainland.--ED.

* Profanity deleted.--ED.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.