Ruby in the Swamp

Sirs:

You will be helping a great cause of a nation should you allow us to express our sentiment and voice our appeals to the good reason of the American people through your magazine. . . .

I am only one of the 16 million human organisms who happened to be thrown by the progeniting hands of God into these "seven thousand emeralds" that decorate the western brim of the greatest oceanic basin. Obscure and insignificant as I am, I am doubtless conveying what practically every one of the 16 million Filipinos are saying, and would say, if allowed the chance to explode their hearts' content. These 16 million suntanned Brownies are not a specimen of a species hypothesized to be devoid of the psychology-discovered instinct of self-preservation. And in this world of Blitzkriegs; of Hurricanes and Spitfires and Junkers, and Panzer Divisions; of $5,000,000,000 defense programs and ''hemispheric defense"; of "China Incidents," and of "New Orders in Greater Asia,"--the instinct of the day (for the young, defenseless and unprepared) is self-preservation; and the order of the hour is "to the protecting wings of a mighty defender!" For Australia, Canada or South Africa, this protecting wings are Great Britain's. For Indo-China, it would have been France. For the East Indies it would have been The Netherlands. But for the Filipinos, it is the American Eagle! . . .

I am constantly irked by newspaper reports in which American Senators, Congressmen, journalists, etc. are quoted as glad to dispose of the Philippines and free themselves of their pledge to her. If the American people would only do a little reminiscing: in 1898 or thereabouts, in the White House, there was one soul who could not sleep for nights. The democracy-loving, civilization-exponent President McKinley was praying in pulsating ardor to his God to guide him in making a decision on what to do with a handful of verdant islands inhabited by 8,000,000 liberty-loving civilization-absorbent ethnological group. . . . [He] intimated American dishonorableness in returning the Islands to Spain, and cruelty in setting her free in a precarious international setup. . . . The American people hailed the decision. . . .

I wish to tell you that I have not yet met the Filipino who has the exaggerated patriotism of desiring a separation now. It will be finding ruby in the swamp if you can find 5 out of every 100 Filipinos who favor independence. And if 5% of a nation is not in favor of independence I think that independence should better be kept somewhere else where it would not kick that nation to extinction. . . .

FLORENTINO ABREA YORONG Bonifacio, Misamis Occ., P. I.

P. S. I am a schoolteacher, 27 years old, of the common financial means type. I live in a rural section of the country and has seen enough of my countrymen to make my assertions here authentic.

One Registrar's Day

Sirs:

Knowing your interest in the human interest behind the news, I thought you would be interested in hearing about the experiences of a registrar for the national defense selective training project on Oct. 16. . . .

The men whom I signed up were mostly laborers from . . . the slum district north of town, and transient workers following up the potato and beet harvest, the damp earth still caked on their overalls and arms. All day long they straggled into the basement of the courthouse, their suspicion, disgruntlement and sometimes defiance thinly veiled by meticulous courtesy, cooperativeness and attitude of resignation. It seems to me that Uncle Sam is going to have one grand headache keeping tabs on these transient workers. Many of them were stumped when asked to give their address or the name of a person who would always know their address. Many of them did not know the names of the farmers for whom they were working. One of them did not know the name of the town in which he was born, and another did not know how old he was. When asked for their voting precinct, many of them had never voted. General comment was: "I never bother with voting. Why the hell should I? They wouldn't do nothing for me anyway even if I should vote for 'em." There were wisecracks of course, typically Yankee--about the "red tape" of registration, the "propaganda" in the little bulletin of instructions given to each man, about the message by Franklin Roosevelt on the first page of the bulletin--"Holy smoke, Joe, can ya imagine that! President Roosevelt hisself writing me a personal letter of gratitude and appreciation. Hurry up and sign your X so you can be on the roll of honor too!" Funniest registrant was a happy-go-lucky darky who was stumped by the requirement to name a person who would always know his address. He . . . finally replied: "Well, ah's got a lady friend who travels with me who usually knows wheah ah's at." Most difficult registrant was a blind fellow who wore dark glasses. I first dreaded asking him: "What color are your eyes?" He laughed good-humoredly, replied, "I don't really see what difference it makes, but you can see for yourself," and yanked off his glasses, revealing one glass eye, one great bulging eye puffed out with watery fluid. His eyes were hazel.

For the sake of my own curiosity, I asked as many as I could, what they thought of this whole business of signing up for the draft. Opinions of course varied but resolved into three general categories: 1) "Oh, it won't be so bad if the food's good. It's only a year anyway and I might as well be in the Army as any place else." 2) "I suppose with the war and Hitler and Fascism and all, it's the only thing to do.

They all say it's for the best but whether it is or not, I've gotta sign up, that's all there is to it." 3) "The whole business is just a lot of g--d-- b-- s-- !"

ALICE FOLSOM Idaho Falls, Idaho

Outstanding Aviator

Sirs:

. . . You refer to Colonel Lindbergh as an "ex-hero. . . ."

Both Colonel and Mrs. Lindbergh are offering our citizens a fearless, truthful, honest and intelligent explanation of our domestic and foreign affairs (as pertaining to present war activities). Would that we had such minds in places of authority today. Only those who fear truth, honesty and superb intellects will resort to a cowardly debasement of such citizens as the Lindberghs.

When Lindbergh speaks he does so with the understanding, wisdom and foresight of a Lincoln. . . .

EDWIN H. PITCHER Baltimore, Md.

Sirs:

How come your Science department hasn't had an article re Lindbergh's perfecting of his mechanical heart ? Proof of it is scattered all through his too frequent radio speeches.

ISIDOR SHAFFER Flushing, N. Y.

> The Lindbergh-Carrel perfusion pump or ''artificial heart" was described in TIME, June 13, 1938.--ED.

Conspicuous Captain

Sirs: RE CAPTAIN ROOSEVELT HAVE REGISTERED WEAR BIFOCAL EYE GLASSES WILL I BE A CAPTAIN?

E. EVANS FAR WELL New Orleans, La.

Sirs: Of all the silly issues interjected into this campaign on both sides, the silliest is the question of Elliott Roosevelt's acceptance of a captaincy in the Maintenance Corps of the Air Service. Let's consider the facts: 1) Elliott Roosevelt is 30 years old. 2) He has a family--as a matter of fact, he has two families. 3) He has abandoned an interesting and profitable job for one that pays him $200 a month, and even in times of peace army life is no bed of roses. There was about as much chance of his being drafted as there is of me being drafted.

In short, he volunteered when he didn't have to, and so long as there is a regular army and a conscript one, with all due respect to drafted men, a volunteer is a volunteer and will remain one. Let all vociferous young men still in civil life remember that.

Of course Elliott Roosevelt could have made a spectacular and theatric gesture and enlisted as a private, thereby accruing to himself temporary praise, but as everyone knows within a few months he would have been offered a commission as would any other man of h.s age, experience and position.

What he did was far more modest, sensible and honest. Apparently, however, in the eyes of numerous people he made a gaffe, although it is difficult not to make one whatever you do when some 20 million of your fellow citizens are out waiting to scalp you. If it was a gaffe, at least it was not an ungenerous or unpatriotic one.

Finally, what has it got to do with his father? The question should appeal to everyone who has a fully grown son. Elliott Roosevelt is an oversize, active and extremely determined man. Should his father have spanked him? But his father is Commander in Chief of the Army. Quite so, but as Commander in Chief, although he may at times make or break generals, he does not make or break captains, lieutenants or sergeants, nor interfere with the decisions of enlistment boards. . . .

STRUTHERS BURT Three River Ranch Moran, Wyo.

> Author Struthers Burt (The Delectable Mountains, Festival, Powder River) has approximately no chance whatever of being drafted. He is 58.--ED.

Commendable Canada

Sirs:

Your correspondent who complains about the lack of opportunities in Canada [TIME, Sept. 23] belongs to the same class as the young Americans who say there are no opportunities in the U. S. . . . That you have to go to New York or London if you want to reach the top, is equally true whether you live in Yorkshire, Manitoba, Texas or Patagonia. The larger centres offer the biggest opportunities.

As for the remark about the "literary and artistic sterility of Canada," that requires a bit of explaining. Having lived both in Canada and the U. S., I am inclined to think that Canada (that is, the English-speaking part of it) produces more authors and artists per thousand than the U. S. does. But most of them sell their work in the U. S. I am still more certain that Canadians do more reading per capita than do the people of the U. S. The long winter nights, perhaps. But they read mostly U. S. publications. And I, for one, cannot see anything deplorable about that. I cannot even get excited over the fact that Canadian editors go to New York literary agents to buy, while Canadian authors go to New York literary agents to sell. It is better for all concerned than if we tried to keep them all fenced off in their own back yard. Art should be international and should not be hedged in by political boundaries. Of course, if we wanted to develop a fanatical nationalism like that of Germany, we should have to put a stop to that sort of thing. As long as Canadian authors contribute to U. S. magazines and U. S. publications circulate in Canada to the extent they do now, it would be quite impossible to stir up a first-class war between our two countries. . . .

S. LEE Toronto, Ont.

No Sirs: In a recent issue [TIME, Sept. 2] you reported the attempt of Winston Churchill to cut down on the long-drawn-out and ultraformal expressions used in the English [civil] service. Quoted below is a memo which in effect says "No" to my sister's application to leave the British Isles. . . .

"The Director of the Passport and Permit Office presents his compliments to Mrs.-- , and, in reply to her further appeal, regrets to inform her that, further consideration having been given to her case, it is not possible to make an exception to the general rules governing the grant of permits in her favour."

A. H. PERON Chicago, Ill.

Terrorism Sirs: If wishing would destroy Mexico and the Soviet Union, that would have been done long ago by such haters of the people as TIME'S publishers are. It is fortunate for the people that they have a better source of information. You would have the world believe that it is the Soviet Union who is making war in the world, so all we have to do is destroy the Soviet Union, the world would be safe for democracy or something. That the only way to settle things in Mexico is to send the U. S. Army down there and give the country back to the oil companies. You always try to leave the impression on the people that Communists are individual terrorists, when you know in your dirty black hearts that the Communists are not individual terrorists. Terrorism belongs to the system that you represent and would like to bring to Mexico and above all in Russia. You can wish and lie and insinuate with all your might, history will show you up for what you are, enemies of the people both at home and abroad.

WAYNE ADAMSON Chicago, Ill.

No. 5 Sirs: In your Current Affairs Test (TIME, Oct. 21), question No. 20 reads as follows: "Though he said plenty in his acceptance speech, Willkie did not say that: 1) Roosevelt has courted a war for which the country is not prepared. 2) He would like to debate Roosevelt. 3) He was a liberal Democrat until a few years ago. 4) He favors old-age pensions and unemployment insurance. 5) Military conscription is undemocratic and unnecessary in peacetime."

The answer listed as correct for that question is No. 3, and that is, of course, an error, as No. 5, obviously, is the right answer. . . .

MRS. V. P. BURNS Pittsburgh, Pa.

> Right is Reader Burns and some 40 others who protested a typographical error, for which TIME'S apologies.--ED.

Strange Words Sirs: I have read your interesting article in TIME, Oct. 14, and was, at first, only slightly amused at several inaccuracies in it. However, now that I get the reaction it has created in some quarters, I feel that I must take a more serious view of the matter.

I did not cast any aspersions on any professions or trades whatever. What I did say was that some professions--writers, engineers, inventors, chemists, etc.--enjoy the privilege of having to create new things in the course of their daily work if they want to survive, while others, whose useful work moves along more routine lines, like that of streetcar conductors or bookkeepers--the word "storekeeper" never was mentioned--were less fortunate in that respect. As a matter of fact, I think storekeepers do a lot of constructive and educational work. Words like "insurance peddlers" are strange to my vocabulary. I believe lawyers, insurance brokers and advertising men represent honorable professions, and I hold them in the highest respect.

I did not say that "Every man I have ever hired tried to double-cross me." What I did say was that in my 40 years of business experience I have never found a female employe who was not one hundred per cent faithful to her employer, while I, for one, have been less fortunate in my male employes, some of whom tried to take advantage of their positions. I know of many others whose loyalty is unquestionable.

I am sorry that my informal talk seems to have created the impression that I consider myself important. I really do not. In print, some of the remarks about and attributed to me appear in doubtful taste. . . .

OTTO EISENSCHIML Chicago, Ill.

> TIME'S reporter was among those who actually heard kindly, philogynous Vegetable-Oil Processor Eisenschiml speak. The recollections of speaker and hearer appear to have dis agreed in details. -- ED.

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