Louisiana's Allen
Sirs:
After seeing your reassertion in the [Aug. 27] issue of TIME that the picture captioned "Governor of Louisiana" [TIME, Aug. 13] was really Governor Allen, I took the liberty of sending the picture and clipping to Governor Allen himself. The enclosed letter is self-explanatory. . .
DAVID CROCKETT
Alexandria, La.
The letter from Governor Allen to Reader Crockett:
Dear Mr. Crockett:
This is to acknowledge and thank you . . . for your interest in my behalf. You are correct, this is not my picture.
With kindest personal regards. I am
O. K. ALLEN
Governor
State of Louisiana Executive Department
Baton Rouge, La.
Upon a second investigation TIME discovers that the picture it ran of Oscar Kelly Allen was not that of the Governor of Louisiana but of Brigadier General William Mitchell, U. S. A., resigned. The original error was caused by careless labeling on the part of a newspicture service. Because Governor Allen and General Mitchell bear a certain resemblance to each other, because they both attended the Roosevelt inaugural in top hats, because they were both photographed on that occasion, TIME in its first investigation was assured it had made no mistake, hence stuck to its guns. To Keystone photo agency, a rebuke; to Governor Allen, apologies.--ED.
Absinthe & Impotence
Sirs:
"Brutish Wormwood," (TIME, Sept. 3) brings to mind a story heard in Paris a few years ago. The story:
The second year of the War found France worrying more than usual about her declining birth rate. ... A blackmailing publisher of a small Paris paper hit upon a plan to shake down the firm of Pernod Fils, large absinthe manufacturers, by threatening to campaign for the prohibition of absinthe. His plan of attack took advantage of the following popular beliefs:
1) That wormwood is supposed to act as an aphrodisiac.
2) That continued use of an aphrodisiac produces impotence.
3) That France is a nation of absinthe sippers.
Therefore France as a nation was becoming impotent--witness her declining birth rate-- and absinthe was the cause. . . .
Pernod Fils refused to pay the blackmail demands and the said publisher commenced his campaign in print. Due to War hysteria and the general desire to do anything to win the War, to say nothing of the Frenchman's morbid fear of such a terrible catastrophe as mass-impotence (some Frenchmen won't smoke American cigarets because they believe them to contain saltpetre), the movement caught the popular fancy and was militantly endorsed by the rest of the Paris papers. At this point Pernod Fils is supposed to have paid off the publisher, whereupon he retracted as best he could, but too late, as soon thereafter the Government took advantage of the public temper and banned the sale of absinthe. The moral of the story seems to be that soon thereafter the publisher was caught in another blackmailing scheme and sent to prison for a term of years.
EDWARD B. PAGE
San Francisco, Calif.
Rops' Absinthe Drinker
Sirs:
Your good article on absinthe in TIME, Sept. 3, was made even better by the reproduction of Rops' Absinthe Drinker. May I have some information about that picture? Was your cut made from the painting or the etching? In how many forms did Rops himself execute the picture? How many copies are extant? Is it purchasable from dealers' stocks? What was last quoted price? . . .
JAMES P. WHARTON
Weems, Va.
Art dealers know surprisingly little of the history of the picture. As far as is known, Rops executed it in but two forms: painting and drawing. The original Buveuse d'Absinthe was drawn in 1864, copied in etching by Fred Chevalier. In 1910 the drawing was in possession of Edward Deman of Brussels; the painting in the collection of Lord Rebuc of London. Why Rops, himself an able engraver, made no copies, whether other copyists worked on it, whether prints are available in the U. S., is a mystery. The TIME cut was made from a plate in the March 1902 number of Zeitschrift fuer vildende Kunst in the New York Public Library.--ED.
Poor Man's Plane
Sirs:
The story, "Poor Man's Plane" in TIME, Sept. 10, would surely indicate that Director Eugene L. Vidal of the Department of Commerce in calling for bids on 25 new planes for his inspectors, had hoped to pull out of the hat a plane for the public to sell for $700, and had failed. In order to understand . . . the entire project, it is necessary to consider the following facts!
1) Last November Director Vidal canvassed all civilian pilots, mechanics and student pilots (about 35,000) on their attitude toward a small plane if it could be volume-produced and sold for about $700. The response was enthusiastically in favor.
2) In December, PWA announced the allotment of $500,000 to the Department of Commerce for assistance to the industry in the development and mass production of a low-priced, safer airplane--since private capital admittedly could not do it alone. To date this fund has not been received by the Department and in light of succeeding developments, is no longer required although it would be heartily welcomed if it turned up.
3) In January the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce endorsed the Vidal program.
4) In February, the airmail situation developed and the little plane project was shoved into a back seat.
5) In May, convinced that the promised grant by PWA would not be forthcoming, Director Vidal, then in need of 25 planes for his inspectors, decided not to adhere to the custom of purchasing the usual expensive craft, but to have the industry build the kind of ships he had been advocating. Besides saving money, he hoped there would evolve from these craft a model that would pave the way for the popular plane. He issued a call for bids. The specifications embodied safety requirements that probably cannot be met by any U. S. ship in production today and naturally he could not dictate what the price should be. In fact that subject had no place in this phase of the program. However, when the bids were opened Aug. 27, Director Vidal found they averaged only $3,500--although the bid prices included all engineering development expense! --far less than the average price normally paid by the Department for stock planes. He did not regard the bid prices as ''poor reading" as TIME said. . . . He was delighted with the designs submitted, particularly since several of them may completely eliminate the most dangerous plane characteristics that lead to accidents, namely, stalling and spinning, and he is eagerly looking forward to the day when the more promising ones--promising both to safe operation and cost--will be built. . . . 6) In June, Congress gave him the authority and the President allotted $100,000 from a special fund to further the small plane plan. In July he established a Development Section and immediately put it in charge of the acquisition of the 25 planes. This was logical material to start with. There should be no confusion between the order for 25 planes for his inspectors and the purpose of the Development Section, for in the latter Director Vidal now has the facilities for working out a type of plane in line with his ideas. Once such a plane is developed the matter of interesting the industry in placing it in volume production will be taken up.
FREDERICK R. NEELY
Chief, Aeronautic Information Section Bureau of Air Commerce U. S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D. C.
Water Before Feed Sirs:
In your article recounting the recent half-million-dollar hold-up (TIME, Sept. 3) is found the statement, "As every horseman knows, the rule is to feed hay first, then water," or words to that effect.
As a matter of fact, as every horseman knows, the opposite is the correct procedure. Water, in the case of the horse, passes almost immediately to the caecum, or "blind gut." and when taken following feeding, carries with it a considerable amount of feed, which should be allowed to remain in the digestive tract proper and become fully assimilated! . . .
It has been my observation that anyone who has ever ridden as a child a Shetland" pony in a park, considers himself an expert horseman, but demonstration of his prowess frequently gives an opposite impression. In these days, when a knowledge of horses and horse management is really an unusual commodity, the fact that the hold-up man did do the watering and feeding in the correct order should narrow the chase down considerably, and should provide the bloodhounds of the law with a valuable clue.
C. R. GlLDART
1st Lieut, F. A., U. S. A.
Louisville, Ky.
Sirs:
. . . I would suggest that authorities look for descendants of Jesse James; for the gangster, like famed Jesse, knows his horses, the editor of TIME does not.
P. G. RUDIX, D.D.S.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Sirs:
... I call your attention to the fact that horses get colic if watered after being fed.
Captain. Assistant Engineer Commissioner
Sirs:
If I am mistaken please let me know because Dan is only 13 now and I do want to keep him until he is grown up at least. . . .
FELIPE CAUHAPE
San Jose, Calif.
According to the New York S. P. C. A., hay should precede water into a horse's stomach if the meal is to be topped off with grain. But if hay or grain is the only course, water is the aperitif.--ED.
Housing Loans Sirs:
With no intent to quibble, I believe there are two factual errors in your article about the National Housing Act in your issue of Aug. 27.
1) You say "The size of his loan is limited to one-fifth of his income." If a man wishes to make an $1,800 loan, his income need not be $9,000, as your statement would lead one to believe; but inasmuch as the loan is spread over a period of three years, his income need only be $3,000 (one third of $9,000), or five times the yearly payment of $600 on the $1,800 loan.
2) You say "In case of default the U. S. will pay the bank 20-c- on each lost dollar under the 'Insurance' contract' This does not seem to check with the official information released by the Federal Housing Administration. The Government guarantees 100% of all losses up to 20%. For example: A bank loans out $100,000 under the National Housing Act. Loaner "A," who borrows $2,000, defaults. The Government refunds the entire $2,000 to the finance institution and will continue to refund 100% on all defaults up to $20,000 (20% of the entire amount loaned by that particular institution). . . .
MARION COLE
Home Modernization Editor New York American
New York City
1) In attempting to simplify. TIME evidently conveyed a wrong impression. As Reader Cole points out, the borrower's yearly income must be five times the yearly payment. In effect, if the loan runs to the three-year maximum, it is limited to one-fifth of the borrower's total income for the three years. 2) Reader Cole is right.--ED.
This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.