President's German

Sirs:

TIME, Feb. 5, p. 13, col. I:

"Since the Doctor and the President do not speak each other's language, Fran Doktor Einstein had to translate when her learned husband said, 'Boating and sailing are my principal hobbies.' ''

FORTUNE, December, p. 114, col. 3: "His early schooling included many summers abroad, a term at Nauheim, and the very easy and fluent command of French and German which gives him so great an advantage over his predecessor in dealing with Europeans." May I inquire which is correct?

RAYMOND D. WOOD

Mount Kisco, N. Y.

Sirs:

... I read TIME, admire and covet FORTUNE; TIME must be right. Is it? Or does the Doctor speak only in logarithms?

JOSEPH W. RYAN

Aitkin, Minn.

Sirs: ...Is not Doktor Einstein's language German? JUDSON S. HUBBARD Denver, Col. President Roosevelt speaks German but not so fluently as he does French and Italian. Frau Doktor Einstein translated to speed up the talk.--ED.

Washington's Rheumatism Sirs:

I notice on p. 41 of your issue dated Feb. 5, under Medicine referring to the "Case of George Washington, Esq." the following statement:

"Rheumatism kept him from attending the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia."

This is not so. Nothing kept Washington from attending this Convention. As a matter of fact Washington was invited to attend this proposed Convention even before it had the sanction of Congress. At that time he declined, giving as his reason that he had previously declined the invitation of his comrades in arms, the Society of the Cincinnati, to come to Philadelphia and be its president. The real reason was that the call for the Convention had not as yet received the authorization of Congress. When Congress finally sanctioned the Convention, he accepted at once. It is true that he was suffering from rheumatism to such an extent that he "had his arm in a sling for ten days at a time." Lack of ready money also hampered him.

On May 9, 1787, he left his Mt. Vernon home and arrived in Philadelphia May 13, 1787, and recieved a great reception for he records in his diary on that date: "On my arrival, the Bells were chimed." He was President of the Convention from the day it opened until the day it closed on Sept. 17, 1787. On that date he recorded in his diary the following:

"The business being thus closed, the Members adjourned to the City Tavern, dined together and took a cordial leave of each other; after which I returned to my lodgings, did some business with, and received the papers from the Secretary of the Convention, and retired to meditate on the momentous w[or]k which had been executed, after not less than five, lor; large part of the time Six, and sometimes 7 hours sitting every day, [except] Sundays and the ten days adjournment . . . for more than four months."

It is altogether probable that had not Washington been there, the Constitutional Convention would have never agreed on the submission of any document at that time. CHAS. J. SMITH

Holbrook, Ariz.

Sirs:

. . . I felt that it would be unjust to accuse Washington of placing personal discomfort above the destiny of his country. And he was not alone, as the venerable Benjamin Franklin was the guiding spirit of the Convention, despite his painful attacks of gout which prevented him from being on his feet most of the time. . . .

LAURENCE W. ROTH

Battle Creek, Mich.

Although he cited his rheumatism as a reason for declining election to the Convention, General Washington of course finally accepted and went.--ED. Washington's Head Sirs: Had George Washington walked into the offices of Professor Walter Augustus Wells, Washington, D. C. for examination, Professor Wells would have undoubtedly been surprised and alarmed at the results shown. Had the same George Washington gone into a large hat shop today to be fitted, the consternation of the clerk at being unable to fit the first President would undoubtedly have been greater than that of Professor Wells at learning that the President should go to no end of trouble to keep his feet dry. For Professor Wells, under Medicine (TIME, Feb. 5), in his description of Washington, says: ''large head (26 7/8 in. around)." In the scale of sizes in men's hats, size 8 (which is so large that it is practically unheard of), is a head measurement of 24 3/4; hat measurement of 25 1/8. Allowing 3/8 in. for each head size, it appears that the President would have needed almost a size 8 3/4 to be properly fitted. What I am wondering is this: who is wrong? Professor Wells? President Washington? Or possibly, though seldom. TIME itself. DONALD A. BARCLAY

Pawnee City, Neb

Professor Wells used the measurements of a life mask of Washington, made by Sculptor Jean Antoine Houdon. A 26 7/8 in. head would require a size 8 1/4 hat which, today, would have to be made to order. Most hatters keep in stock sizes up to 7 3/4, rarely have calls for larger sizes.--ED.

Conant Flayed Sirs: In TIME for Feb. 5, p. 27, President Conant of Harvard is reported to have said at the age of

22: "I'm going to be married and the kind of woman I'd marry wouldn't live in Ohio. If she would, I wouldn't marry her." This provincial remark alone should disqualify any man from the presidency of a great eastern university. Years may have mellowed this inbred New Englander but it is doubtful.

In another part of this story, "Chemist at Cambridge," we are told that as an experiment President Conant would like to set up half a dozen $1,000 freshman scholarships in a section of the Midwest. ''No one can predict in what locality able young men may be found, or into what family they may be born," admits still youthful President Conant. Quite true, the Brothers Compton came from Ohio.

Has President Conant had a change of heart since his courtship days? Has he found out that some women have followed their men into denser wilds than Ohio? He is just as he always was, and will be, a "New Englander to the core," and under him Harvard will continue to patronize students and scholars from parts west of Massachusetts. His formula won't develop into real American substance. His "sense of adventure" should lead him to explore the hinterlands of his own country, but it won't get him far from Boston.

M. Z. LUCAS Cleveland, Ohio TIME, having learned that the widely published anti-Ohio anecdote about Dr. Conant is not founded in fact, regrets having given it fresh currency.--ED. Sirs:

. . . The article on President Conant is splendidly done.

TREVOR W. SWETT Denver, Col.

Swine (Cont'd)

Sirs:

Despite the delightful implications of your note on the death of Blue Boy, "of overeating and overgrooming, in Hollywood," I add my objection to that of Rev. Alfred Gilberg of Helena, Mont. at its inclusion in a column containing the obituaries of certain of the eminent men and women he mentions (TIME, Feb. 12).

Inconspicuous, taciturn about his marital affairs, Blue Boy has left a model for many a cinemactor from whom he was protected in life (except for Will Rogers) by a four-foot fence of substantial construction. He never wangled a city deal or produced a strip act.

A four-foot wooden fence! You talk about a hair line!

I am glad to hear that Rev. Gilberg's relatives are all well. Hoping you are the same.

PHIL STONG Keosauqua, Iowa P. S. Nevertheless, don't stop my subscription.

Proven Picketer

Sirs:

In your issue of Feb. 5 on p. 17 you write: "Socialist Norman Thomas cried out that one billion dollars was the least amount needed for carrying CWA forward." That is correct. And I also said that there should be guarantees of steady appropriations to maintain necessary relief by work or otherwise for the unemployed, until such time as they could be reabsorbed into properly planned industries. However, I have steadily insisted that CWA was not the best way; that instead PWA should be greatly expanded, especially in the direction of re-housing the quarter of our population who now live in slums and shacks; that CWA should be reduced to the dimensions of the useful work done under it and that for those who cannot then be immediately employed an outright unemployment allowance be granted until such time as a proper system of unemployment insurance can be set up. This last is less destructive of morale than hastily improvised made work under CWA.

On p. 18 in discussing the strike of hotel workers you say: "Norman Thomas said he would march for the Waldorf picketers but he did not." My promise was always conditional on my ability to rearrange certain other engagements. This I could not do, but I showed my sympathy with the strikers by speaking late that night at their mass meeting and by becoming chairman of a public committee in support of their cause as against an unjust code, chiseling under the codes, and refusal of the employers to permit them to organize and bargain collectively. I believe that picketing demonstrations have their uses, as I proved the following day when I led a large group of Socialist pickets in an orderly demonstration around Macy's against the sale of German goods. .

NORMAN THOMAS New York City

Front Door Man

Sirs:

In the issue of TIME of Jan. 29, under the heading ''Backdoor Men" you paint a direful picture of the lawyer-lobbyists who sell their influence. . . . You printed my name among others so classified.

The paragraph, its direct statements and its implications, so far as I am concerned, is false, malicious, defamatory and damaging. . . .

I do not represent any company or other person who has received, or is receiving, any money from the Government through any of the departments, bureaus or offices which are expending Government money for emergency relief or construction. I have received no fee in connection with the expenditure of any Government money. I represent no one having a claim against the Government. I have not represented anyone who has borrowed money from the Government. . . . However, since the Government is in the banking business, I would consider it ethical to give legal advice to industrial institutions and banks in connection with loans, if called upon to do so. I have not assisted directly or indirectly in, nor have I received any fee in connection with, the enactment or the prevention of the enactment of any legislation whatsoever. Knowing that I have consistently refused employment of the nature suggested in your article, it is rather disagreeable to find myself classed by you among those lawyers and lobbyists who do handle that nature of business. . . . My influence . . . with the Administration would not be worth a five cent piece to anyone. . . .

I have confined my law practice to the courts and to the quasi judicial branches of the Government. I have given legal advice to industries in the formulation of industrial codes. I have appeared publicly as attorney for corporations and stockholders whose legal rights were involved before the Fletcher Investigating Committee of the United States Senate. . . .

I am not a "backdoor man." I am not a "lobbyist." I am a lawyer. My appearances have been in public, before the proper tribunals, and in the true character of my connection with whatever cases I have presented. . . .

PATRICK J. HURLEY

Washington, D. C.

TIME gladly accepts and believes able Lawyer Hurley's disclaimer of being a lobbyist. TIME also agrees that the influence of a Republican Secretary of War with a Democratic Administration is not worth 5-c-.--ED.

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