The Irish Question Sirs: In your March 25 issue you print an article on Ireland and its fight for what you call independence. . . . You state that " The religious difference has been greatly overemphasized." According to the latest World Almanach p.199, Northern Ireland has: Roman Catholics 420,000 Protestants 836,000 Also you state that Northern Ireland is economically depressed and riddled with corruption. Northern Ireland has a balanced budget and a neat profit of -L-1,227,000 while Southern Ireland has a deficit of -L-2,573,000. As for the "Divide and Rule" idea it seems that no one remembers that division came first and the ruling afterwards. Would TIME prefer civil war? We once fought to make the South remain a part of the U.S.A. What independence did we grant to those dissenters? Is Ireland from its position not more vital to England? England buys 80% of Ireland's exports and furnishes 60% of her imports. It looks to me as if the Northern Irish were working while the Southern Irish were talking politics, and nursing imaginary grievances. They haven't outgrown the age of the religious wars. FRANCES O. BRIGGS Ithaca, N.Y.

Sirs: As one who wrote you protesting your Jan.15 article on Premier Eamon de Valera of Eire I would like to square matters by telling you that this week's piece is very swell and in the best TIME edition. CYRUS RICE Milwaukee, Wis.

Sirs: I was amazed and shocked beyond expression to find TIME this week functioning as a propaganda sheet for the Irish Republicans and giving aid and comfort to them in their nefarious work of terrorism and assassination of innocents. . . .I strongly suspect that this article on Eire was slipped over on TIME's editors by a clever Irish Republican schemer and deceiver. The Scottish-Irish of Northern Ireland. . . .are as determined today as ever that they shall remain British and Protestant; their banner is inscribed now, as in the day of William of Orange, with this proud slogan: " NO SURRENDER." Let the Irish terrorists start a fight if they want to, then they shall see what manner of fighters these Northern Scottish-Irish are! JOHN CAMERON Quincy, Mass.

> There are many fine things in North Ireland, not least of all its people, but the fact is that North Ireland also has economic depression, gerrymandering, social and political discrimination against Catholics. --ED

Sirs: Your news magazine for March 25 has a splendidly written article on Eamon de Valera... It is not well known that his life was saved through the efforts of Michael Francis Doyle, a Philadelphia lawyer, who at that period represented the Irish Revolutionary group in this country. After De Valera was condemned to death Mr. Doyle dug up the evidence that De Valera was born in New York City and never renounced his American citizenship. He presented it to President Wilson, through Mr. Tumulty, the President's Secretary, and as a result of which representations were made to the British Government and De Valera's life was saved. Mr. Doyle was the American lawyer who represented Sir Roger Casement in his trial for treason in London, and in addition to that represented the other Irish Revolutionists in various matters in this country. It is interesting to know that he is practicing lawyer in Philadelphia and he has never taken advantage of the great service which he did on behalf of the Irish Revolution. H. J. McDERMOTT Glenside, Pa.

A newsworthy addendum to TIME's story, Reader McDermott's letter might have added that modest Lawyer Doyle (onetime secretary to William Jennings Bryan) does not claim sole credit for saving De Valera's life. He gives much credit to Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, then British Ambassador to the U.S. Worth a footnote is a conversation between Lawyer Doyle, after he returned from unsuccessfully defending Sir Roger Casement in London, and President Wilson's Secretary Tumulty. Doyle explained that he had discovered Sir Roger could demand a firing squad instead of hanging. Said Tumulty: "And did you charge him a fee for that, Michael?" --ED

Headless Cromwells Sirs: In middle column, p. 15, of the April 1 issue, you speak of U. S. Minister Cromwells "historical dustiness," in his allusion to head chopping, and say in a footnote that "It was not Oliver Cromwell who got axed, but Charles I."

Since Minister Cromwell did not distinguish between ante-mortem and post-mortem axing, may I not "axe" you if you did not err in the footnote? Was not Oliver's body disinterred and decapitated and his head exposed to public view after Charles II returned to England? ARTHUR L. H. STREET Minneapolis, Minn.

Sirs: P. 15, TIME, April 1--"For three full minutes the audience applauded, forgiving Jimmy's historical dustiness for the sake of his heat." Is it possible that TIME, rather than Jimmy, needs to be forgiven for historical dustiness? Is it possible that Jimmy was thinking, not of Oliver, but of Thomas Cromwell, who was beheaded on July 28, 1540 because Henry VIII disliked the wife Thomas had chosen for him ? EARLE W. CRAWFORD Minister Kirkwood Presbyterian Church Knoxville, Tenn.

> Oliver Cromwell was indeed beheaded posthumously. But Jimmy more likely referred to the other beheaded Cromwell: Thomas, who died "by a clumsy executioner in a manner more than usually revolting."--ED.

Incredulous Sirs: From your current cinema review I quote the following:

"The Fight For Life is a grueling picture to watch. Possibly women should not see it at all."

For a moment, after reading this, I was incredulous. The longer I consider it, the more indignant I become. No film could be of greater interest to women. I saw it at once and so did many of my friends. In spite of the fact that I recently had a child -- and one of my friends is expecting a baby soon -- none of us found it "grueling." It is excitingly impressive -- it's challenging -- it's grand. Your reviewer is a sissy. If he emerges from the Victorian mist and faces reality, he will find that most women are fully aware of the risks that go with the everyday job of bearing a child. They are even more interested than the medical profession and the masculine public in learning the sources of danger and in working toward a solution. So we shouldn't see The Fight For Life ! That reminds me of the story about joe Louis when asked if he had seen the pictures of the first Louis-Schmeling fight. "No," he said, "I was at the fight." JOYCE DEVEREUX New York City

> TIME'S Cinema editor is only a man. --ED.

Chiropractors Sirs: I read your slam at chiropractic in your issue of TIME, March 18. You call Dr. D. D. Palmer "Fish Palmer." Do you not think that is rather an unfair way to take a "shot" at a man who has been dead for so many years? You say he worked on or with dead fish. Well, the medical student works with dead cats. So you had better make it unanimous and call the leader of the medical fraternity "Cat Fishbein.". . . DR. AMY LEE CULLEN Ronan, Mont.

Sirs: In regard to your article of chiropractic allow me to express my views. I am a student at the National College in Chicago. I have only been here six weeks, but the value and benefit to mankind has so impressed me that slander and direct insult such as your illustrious writer put forth seems unfair. . . . . C. E. DAVIS Junior National Chiropractic Association Chicago, Ill.

Sirs: . . . .May I express my thanks for the manner in which you handled the article on p. 55, in re; Daniel David Palmer and chiropractic. . . . C. STERLING COOLEY* Tulsa, Okla.

Sirs: . . . . The derision of TIME's learned sditors is of small consequence compared to the daily happenings of a follower of the "Old Master." When my 30-month -old son clamors for his adjustment, I know he builton a solid foundation. The eagerness with which my tiny patients await the applicaton of his discovery, is greater acclaim than acquiescence from so-called medical science. Imagien a child clamoring for a hyperdermic "shot" from allopathic potion peddlers. TEDFORD DENNIS, D.C. Madrid, Iowa

Sirs: Congratulations to your editors for the five paragraphs about D. D. Palmer, discoverer of chiropractic, which appeared in your issue of March 18, under Medicine. I didn't know D. D. was a storekeeper, but evidently your reporter is unaware of the fact that an Electroencephaloneuromentimpograph (correct spelling-- check your story) is used at Bellevue Hospital, New York City, as well as by the chiropractic profession. . . . Dr. B. J. Palmer's instrument is a five-channel instrument, the first of its kind. Bellevue's is a three-channel instrument, patterned after Dr. Palmer's and used for the same purpose. . . . I'm not a chiropractor; but I know what chiropractic can do and has done for myself and others. EMILY HENRY New York City

> Bellevue Hospital says it has no Electroencephaloneuromentimpograph, three-channel or otherwise.--ED.

Osteopaths Under the heading "Weird Hospital," TIME'S medical column, for March 4, gives some weird allopathic propaganda against the osteopathic school of medicine and surgery. It gives forth the following amazing information:

"To doctors outside California, Los Angeles County General Hospital is a weird and wonderful place. . . . Although it was built by doctors, it welcomes, under State law, a flock of osteopaths. Doctors and osteopaths work in separate wings, seldom speak to each other."

Just where did the so smart writer get the information that osteopaths are not doctors? As a former member of the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, I seem to remember that quite a number of osteopaths took exactly the same examinations in medicine and surgery, and were granted the same sort of licenses to practice surgery as the allopaths. My understanding is that a similar law operates in California.

Also the gentleman is further in error; "the doctors" did not build Los Angeles County General Hospital; the County built both wings of the hospital. And doubtless if Los Angeles County finds a "flock of osteopaths" more to its liking than a flock of "doctors," that is just too bad. . . . CYRUS N. RAY, D.O. President The Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society. Abilene, Tex.

Sirs:

Many readers of TIME have called the attention of the American Osteopathic Association to statements appearing in your March 4 issue, p. 66, in a story headed "Weird Hospital" in the department "Medicine." . . .

. . . TIME would lead its readers to believe that osteopaths are not doctors, although "osteopaths" (correctly, osteopathic physicians) by their professional education and training, by their legal recognition in all States, as well as by their place in the public esteem, are doctors in every sense. . . . In California, as in the vast majority of other States, osteopathic physicians qualify under the law for as unlimited scope of practice as any other doctor. . . .

TIME may also be interested in knowing that there are 160 hospitals and nearly 100 clinics staffed by osteopathic physicians and surgeons in the U. S. and that approximately 10,000 doctors of osteopathy are licensed and practicing in this and other countries.

Osteopathic educational and training standards enforced by the six colleges of osteopathy approved by the American Osteopathic Association, without exception, consist of high-school graduation, two years of pre-osteopathic college work and the four-year professional course; also for the specialties and in many other cases, internships and postgraduate courses. . . . R. C. McCAUGHAN Executive Secretary American Osteopathic Association Chicago, Ill.

> For any slight, real or imaginary, which it may have conveyed to doctors of osteopathy, TIME is sorry.--ED.

Child Assessment Sirs: Re article in TIME (March 25, p. 62): ". . . He found that Forsyth, one of the richest counties, spent $10,000 all told for each child's education; Dare, one of the poorest, $1,500." Is this something new in the reporting of educational expenditures? Usually comparisons are made in terms of annual per capita cost or in the amount of assessed valuation back of each child. Is this merely an error in reporting or do you really mean that one county spends $10,000 for the complete education of one child while the other spends only $1,500? JOSEPH C. DEWEY Department of Education and Psychology Westminster College New Wilmington, Pa.

> TIME erred. Its figures referred to assessed valuation per child against which school taxes were levied.--ED.

Off-Color Reform Sirs: In several of your late issues you have written regarding our company. . . . You have not brought out the fact that we are issuing records under our ROYALE label by such noted artists as the New York Philharmonic Symphony String Quartet, Eddy Brown, Dr. Clarence Adler, Albert Stoessel of the Juillard School, John Powell, one of America's foremost pianists, Dr. Ernst Victor Wolff, Jan Peerce, Anita Louise, Lamar Stringfield, and many other such prominent artists; also such dance orchestras as Johnny Green and Richard Himber. . . .

We call this to your attention in order to rectify the impression that you have given in your several issues that we issue several "off-color" records. We can say that our catalogue in every respect compares favorably with those of other major record companies.

. . . We clo not propose to make any "off-color" records now or any time in the future. ELI E. OBERSTEIN New York City

> TIME applauds Mr. Oberstein's resolution for the future.--ED.

Nylon Sirs: In common with numerous other publications, TIME, in its issue of Feb. 26, referred to nylon as "artificial silk," and also used a capital "N" in spelling the word nylon. This appeared on p. 87, in the answers to the Current Affairs Test.

Nylon is a generic term, not a trademarked product, and should no more be capitalized than the words "glass" or "steel." Furthermore, nylon is the name applied to an entire family of new materials. Forms into which it can be made include sheets, bristlelike filaments, and fibers. It is in no sense "artificial silk," although nylon fibers now being manufactured do resemble silk in appearance and texture. FLOYD E. WILLIAMSON Public Relations Dept. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company Wilmington, Del.

> As a generic word for a generic product, "nylon" looks like a permanent addition to the language. Most manufacturers prefer to trade-mark their courage. Paradox is that Du Pont (and Webster's) still capitalize Cellophane, a far more generic word to the man-in-the-street. -- ED.

*Author of the article from which TIME quoted.

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