OCR Interpretation

Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, August 07, 1950, Image 8

Image and text provided by Library of Congress, Washington, DC

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1950-08-07/ed-1/seq-8/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for A-8

®je ftoening Jsfaf
With Sunday Morning Edition.
Published by
The Evening Stor Newspaper Company.
B. M. McKELWAY, Editor.
AMIN OFFICE: 11th St. and Pennsylvania Ave.
NEW YORK OFFICE: 420 Lexington Avo.
CHICAGO OFFICE: 43S North Michigan Avo.
Delivered by Carrier.
Evening end Sunday Evening Sunday
ALonthly _1.20* Monthly _90c 10c per copy
Weekly -30c Weekly -20c 10c per copy
*10c additional when 5 Sundays are In a month.
Also 10c additional for Night Final Edition.
Rates by Mail—Payable in Advance.
Anywhere in United States
Evening and Sunday Evening Sunday
1 year -18.00 1 year _11.50 1 year _7.50
4 months _ 9.50 6 months „ 4.00 4 months „ 4.00
1 month -1.40 1 month_1.10 1 Month_ 70c
Tolophono STorling 5000
Entered ot the Post Office, Washington, D, C.
as second-class mail matter.
Member of the Associated Press.
Th« Associated Press is entitled exclusively to the use for
pepublication of all the local news printed In this newspaper as
well as all A. P. news dispatches.
A—« »» MONDAY, August 7, 1950
Bridges Goes to Jail
The jailing of Harry Bridges, Communist
though he quite probably Is, gives rise to a sense
of misgiving that is not devoid of justification.
Bridges was found guilty in April of lying
when he denied being a Communist, and was
released on $25,000 bail pending appeal. Last
week a Federal Judge granted a Government
request that Bridges’ bond be revoked and that
he be sent to jail on the ground that his ac
tivities since the beginning of the Korean war
had been "inimical to the security of the United
If that is a fact, then there can be no com
plaint because of the decision to jail him. No
one has a right to bail if, upon being released,
he would be a menace to the community or to
the Nation. But this is a question of fact, and
the Government’s evidence in support of its
contention in the Bridges matter leaves much
to be desired.
There were two main complaints against
Bridges. First, he had openly opposed armed
intervention in Korea, saying that he preferred
to rely on a cease fire order directed to the North
Koreans. Second, he refused to disavow the
World Federation of Trade Unions, which is
undoubtedly dominated by Communists.
Both of these things, to some degree, are
echoes of the Communist party line. But do
they constitute conduct which is inimical to
the security of the United States? If the answer
is yes, then it follows that there are thousands
of other people, whose views on either or both
of these points, make them dangerous to the
security of the country.
The Communist Daily Worker goes overboard
when it says that the jailing of Bridges "is a
calculated warning to every American that he
must become a cowardly, skulking Imitation
American who keeps his mouth shut while his
country is stampeded on a wave of lies into an
abyss of suffering, misery and atomic death.”
That this is a gross overstatement does not de
tract, however, from the fact that the Bridges
case has its disturbing implications. The judge
who jailed him acted on the stated belief that
Bridges’ conduct had been traitorous. But he
was not tried as a traitor, and this Invites the
inference that, although Bridges was jailed as a
traitor, he could not have been convicted as such.
As we move deeper in the dangerous crisis in
our relations with Russia, it will become increas
ingly harder to resist the temptation to persecute
those whose opinions are at variance with the
dominant point of view. But we should never
lose sight of the distinction between an opinion
which may seem disloyal and an act which is
disloyal. It looks as though Bridges has been
sent to jail because of the opinions he expressed,
and if that is true, even though he may be an
ardent Communist, the rest of us can ill afford
to dismiss the matter with an indifferent shrug
of the shoulders.
Where Delay Would Be Wise
The bill putting the Police Department on a
five-day week is awaiting the President’s signa
ture. The bill ought to become law, for the
shorter work week has become a standard pat
tern. But it would be a mistake to make the
terms of the law effective now.
The cost of the shorter work week for the
Police Department would run to about $900,000
the first full year of operation. It would be
Increased substantially above that figure as
recruits gained seniority and became eligible
for automatic pay increases. But the cost is
not the controlling factor. The real reason for a
delay is the impending shortage of manpower.
That shortage will become more acute as we get
deeper into war and threats of war. Even now
the Police Department is shy 55 men of its au
thorized strength. The five-day week would require
enlistment of 300 additional patrolmen. It seems
unlikely that if the department has not been
able to muster full strength in the recent past
it will be able to obtain in the near future the
number of qualified men required to inaugurate
the shorter work week. If the military situation
becomes more serious, military demands will
drain the department of many men, as in the
past war.
This bill was approved by Congress with the
understanding that it would not take effect until
the money was available and appropriated. There
is pending before the House Appropriations
Committee now a supplemental appropriation
for the five-day week. The appropriation should
be delayed until the future becomes a bit more
clear and the availability of qualified manpower
is assured. We should not deplete the Police
Department, in strength or character of person
nel, merely to inaugurate the five-day week. The
shorter work week should make no difference in
the ability of the department to perform its
functions efficiently.
Fish Out of Water
The career girl who holds her own at
high-level conferences and at Georgetown cock
tail parties is being put in her place on the
apartment house lawn these summer afternoons.
Bhe may be a creature of mystery and prestige
to her neighbors for three seasons of the year,
but in the sunshine on the little grassy plots
where Mamas in sun-suits hold court amid
play-pens, carriages and restless small fry, she
could hardly be of less consequence. When she
arrives, book in hand, to face the frankly in
quiring stares of the sisterhood she is forthwith
exposed as a woman with neither chick nor child,
•nd $8 treated with the lack of deference dpe
such creatures. Maybe she Is the ghost of a
Senator, the terror of a battery of stenographers,
the very breath of the Voice of America. But
what does she know about formulas? Has she a
remedy for colic? Could she tell off a teacher
who is warping Junior’s little ego? Obviously
not. She is silently dismissed from serious
Should she try tentatively to bring up mat
ters of broader interest, and venture a comment
on the Korean “police action,” she finds that, too,
is purely a family affair, leading to speculation
about Joe’s reserve commission, the proposed
new house in Bethesda and the purchase of the
Dashed, she takes refuge in her book. But
the shrill exchange of obstetrical tidbits and
recipes and the long-distance mediation of dis
putes among the young are too much. She is
hopelessly outmanned and outmaneuvered. She
decides she didn’t really want to sun bathe after
all and finally withdraws as gracefully as she
can. The sorority watches her out of sight with
shrugs and smiles, pitying her loneliness, envy
ing her freedom.
Moving Toward the H-Bomb
In contracting with E. I. du Pont de Nemours
& Company to build and operate plants for the
production of the hydrogen bomb, the Atomic
Energy Commission has in effect indicated that
the possibility of manufacturing this most terrible
of all theoretical weapons, though still “iffy,” is
sufficiently promising to warrant a large-scale
effort without further delay.
To that end, as the President has requested,
Congress is to provide an additional atomic fund
of $260,000,000. Most of this money is to be spent
on the construction of new facilities to be located
on a site covering about 200,000 acres. Together
with the du Pont people, the AEC is now engaged
in looking around for such a site, the objective
being, among other things, to find one that is
least vulnerable to military attack and near
enough to existing population centers to avoid
the establishment of new government commu
nities like those at Oak Ridge and Los Alamos.
The du Pont Company—which has agreed to
undertake this portentous project for a $1 fee—
is uniquely well equipped for the job, having
played a key role in the wartime development
of A-weapons. The grim potentialities of the
enterprise can hardly be exaggerated. For the
H-bomb, if it can be developed, will make the
super-deadly atomic bomb seem mild by com
parison. The latter will be merely a “trigger” of
sorts—the force heating up the heavy hydrogen
(deuterium and/or tritium) to a point where the
hydrogen’s nuclei fuse and in the process of
fusion release energy of virtually indescribable
Although the manufacture of deuterium and
tritium—which would constitute the explosive
heart of the weapon—appears to involve no
extraordinary difficulties or costs, some experts
are inclined to believe that the development of
the bomb itself may prove to be impossible. But
Senator McMahon, in his informed capacity as
chairman of the joint congressional committee
on the atom, has somberly declared that “scien
tists feel more confident that this most horrible
of-armaments can he developed successfully than
they felt in 1940 when the original atomic bomb
was under consideration,” at which time there
was more than a little confidence.
Moreover, in Mr. McMahon’s words, the
hydrogen development, assuming its success,
“will be cheaper than its uranium forerunner.
Theoretically, it is without limit in destructive
capacity. A weapon made of such material would
destroy any military or other target, Including
the largest city on earth.” In short, if it is
produced, it will represent as revolutionary and
ghastly an advance over the A-bomb as the
A-bomb represents over coventlonal explosives—
a thing almost too pretematurally deadly for the
mind to visualize, but still a thing that we seem
definitely to be moving toward.
Perhaps all of us ought to hope that no
group of men anywhere will ever be able to
produce such an instrument. But hope is one
thing, and hard reality another. And the hard
reality of our time, in a world gravely menaced
by Soviet aggression, is that the survival of
ourselves and of free mankind as a whole
demands that we do our best, as fast as possible,
to develop the H-bomb. We are in the most
fearsome armaments race in history, and if we
lose it, we are likely to lose everything. That is
the sum of our situation.
Limiting the Number of Taxicabs
There is a revival of bills to limit the number
of taxicabs in Washington. A subcommittee of
the House District Committee has voted to report
such a measure to the full committee. On the
Senate side, a subcommittee first voted against
the bill and then decided to put it before the full
committee, where it is now pending. Perhaps the
greatest demand for the bill comes from the taxi
operators themselves. Certainly there has been
no public demand for it. Even with about 8,000
cabs licensed in Washington there is little visible
evidence that there are too many.
During the past war the number of cabs here
was frozen at about 5,300—not by legislation but
by an order of the Office of Defense Transporta
tion. One of the effects of such legislation was
sharply to increase the value of taxicab licenses—
for they were transferable. Pending legislation
would prohibit such transfers—so that if a taxi
cab driver died or became incapacitated, his de
pendants would realize nothing from his invest
ment in a cab, which could not be driven without
a new license. This seemed wrong to the Com
missioners and it seems wrong to The Star, and
it doubtless would favor the corporate owners of
taxicab fleets—in whose names licenses are held
—as against the individual owner. Transfer of
licenses should be permitted.
The Public Utilities Commission has expressed
no opinion on the desirability of the legislation,
other than the sound recommendation that any
ceiling placed on the number of cabs should be
lifted by the commission if experience showed an
increase to be in the public interest. The number
of licenses now outstanding is not a real index
of the number of cabs operating, for there is
much part-time and short-time cab driving by
people who hold regular jobs in other lines and
who are concerned only with the “cream” of the
rush-hour traffic.
Consideration of the legislation should not
be made only from the point of view of the spe
cial interest represented in the drivers. The de
ciding factor should be whether limitation is
necessary or even advisable in the interest of the
- In 10 years, Nantucket, Mass., added only
10 to its population figure, and shapes up as
just a little tougher to break into than the U. N.
The cost of modern warfare never ceases
to amaze. Even Hollywood can stage its mighty
battle epic for less. A
U. S. Building New HomefrontTeam
By James Y. Newton
A VETERAN of the last “Battle of
Washington" would see scarcely a
familiar face if he were to peek in on
the high councils of the Truman ad
ministration laying plans for “War m.”
Our baby war effort is being run by an
entirely new team.
It is a curious fact that none of the top
engineers of mobilization in the last war
is arouud this time on anything ap
proaching a regular basis. The Knud
sens, Nelsons, Byrneses, Wilsons and
other homefront generals have given
way, for one reason or another, to the
Symingtons, Sawyers, Chapmans, Tobins
and Brannans.
A few of the men who made head
lines a half dozen years or so ago are
dead, like William Knudsen, the General
Motors production genius, who per
formed invaluable service in getting war
production rolling. Many more have
retired. Others of the big World War II
mobilization team apparently have Just
been benched.
Around the Pentagon it is the same
story as in the civilian agencies.
It is much too early in the “War m"
effort to tell how the new team will do.
But around Washington one gets the im
pression that the leaders still don’t know
quite what they are supposed to do—just
as was the case back in 1940 and 1941.
Both times our planners found them
selves equipped with a fixed blueprint for
all-out war—an M-Day plan, but there
was little advance planning either time
for middle-stage mobilization, such as
we are in now.
Hence all of the fumbling about what
controls, and other steps, are necessary
to do the job at hand. Our enemies never
seem to perform according to plan.
Obviously the decisions attending so
called middle-stage mobilization are far
more difficult to make than ones posed
by an all-out effort. There can be no
this-is-it blueprint to follow. The mob
ilizes must play pretty much by ear.
But the problems the country faced
before Pearl Harbor were quite similar
to the ones confronting us today. And
some of the people who helped the Na
tion stumble through the old defense
days undoubtedly could lend good guid
ance now.
Last time, the fumbling threatened to
lick us before we were well into the
fight. Even after the Japs struck, there
were weeks of uncertainty over such
questions as how far civilian production
should be cut and how much war pro
duction facilities should be expanded.
There were repeated conflicts between
civilian and military leaders over war
Early in World War n, the military
men were guilty of underestimating
The old-timers are gone. —AP Photos.
both the amount of materials needed to
win and the quantity of weapons the
country could produce. It was the
needling of such “dreamers” as Harry
Hopkins and other civilian planners
that caused the “Big Brass” to raise
their production sights. Then, when
the Japs were pushing us around in the
Pacific, the military men went too far
the other way. It resulted in many dis
locations of the war production program
in 1942.
After a considerable period of trial
and error, and many replacements, the
old homefront war team really got roll
ing toward the end of 1942. From then
on out, the country witnessed the great
est outpouring of weapons in world his
Let’s take a look at a few of the
mobilization big shots of the last war.
Where are they now?
Donald M. Nelson, chairman of the
War Production Board until late 1944,
is running a mining company with head
quarters in New York.
James F. Byrnes, who left the Supreme
Court to become war mobilization direc
tor, is to be the next Governor of South
Charles E. Wilson, executive vice chair
man of WPB, is once-again president of
General Electric Co. Philip Reed, who
lent a hand early in the last war, is
board chairman of GE.
Ferdinand Eberstadt helped lick one of
the war’s toughest problems—the distri
bution of materials. He heads his own
investment firm in New York.
William M. Jeffers, the railroad
executive who “bulled through” the vital
synthetic rubber program, has retired
to Southern California.
Paul McNutt, war manpower boss,
is practicing law; J. A. Krug, who suc
ceeded Mr. Nelson at WPB, is an in
dustrial consultant; Robert P. Patterson,
who as wartime Undersecretary of War
had much to do with Army production
problems, is a lawyer in New York.
There are literally scores of indus
trial big shots with wartime experience
in Government who are still around in
the business world. Some are at odds
with the Administration, like Bernard
M. Baruch, World War I mobilizer, who
was much closer to things last time, on
his bench in Lafayette Park, than he is
Undoubtedly a few of the old home
front generals will be brought into active
service again when the new war program
really gets going. Some are being con
sulted right now. And down at what
the bureaucrats call the “working levels”
of the National Security Resources Board
and the Commerce Department may be
found many of the lesser lights of last
war days.
But, at the top, it is a brand new
mobilization team we are fielding this
time. Let’s hope it isn’t the second
Letters to The Star . . .
and address Of writer. Please be brief
Indonesia's 'Neutrality'
I am studying a dispatch from Jakarta,
Indonesia, dated July 26. It seems that
foreign ships, taking part in United Na
tions operations against Northern Korea,
were banned today from refueling, load
ing or being repaired in Indonesian ports.
Indonesia claims to have adopted a neu
tral policy in the Korean conflict.
Have the Indonesians forgotten already
when the Japanese overran the islands?
They screamed to high heaven for help
against the Japs—and they got it—from
the democracies. Then they screamed
for the Dutch to be ousted—who, by the
way, have been responsible for the or
ganisation which has resulted in what
ever prosperity to which the Indonesians
may be laying claim. Before they came,
Indonesians were lying in the sun. Now
they don’t need any one—so they seem
to think. They should realize that they
may be screaming for help again!
In this instance, Indonesian policy re
minds me of the old woman who, for a
long time, had no pots and pans of her
own. She was continually borrowing from
her neighbors. Finally she came into a
little money and contrived to buy herself
some utensils. Promptly she made a sign
and hung it on her door. Jt read: ’’I
neither borrow nor lend.”
And the Indonesians are not the only
ones who seem to have forgotten that
some of the advantages which they are
claiming were not secured by their own
efforts but by the combined efforts of
most of the democratic world.
They claim to believe in neutrality,
non-aggression and peace at any price.
But they are always the very first ones
to take advantage of every privilege se
cured by fighting. I think that people
who live their lives this way are con
Laura K. Pollock.
Call Them Koreans
I have read with the deepest feeling
of regret the caption of the picture
printed on the first page of this eve
ning’s Star. The caption, "Escapes Reds
in ‘Gook’ Suit,” is an appalling rejec
tion of the very things the United
Nations troops are fighting for in
To call a Korean a "gook” is pre
cisely the same as referring to a Ne
gro as a nigger, an Italian as a wop,
an Irishman as a mick, a Jew as a
kike, or the application of any number
of other opprobrious epithets. All of
these, I sincerely hope and believe, are
not worthy of use by The Star.
United Nations, consisting primarily
of United States, troops are fighting
a desperate battle for justice and de
cency in Korea, a battle against totali
tarian aggression in its most reprehen
sible form. For these troops to refer
to North and South Koreans as “gooks”
is quite bad enough; but this is under
standable under the strain of battle (we
frequently referred to our wartime Allies
by unpleasant names). I believe, how
ever, that for a respectable newspaper
to carry the use of such scurrilous nick
names to the home front is inexcusable.
We are attempting not only to repel
the lawless invasion of the Communists
in Korea, but, equally important, to
strengthen the prestige of the United
States in the eyes of Asiatics and other
peoples throughout the world. We can
not encourage belief in freedom and
democracy abroad if we are intolerant
in deed or expression at home.
Richard C. Sachs.
(Editor’s Note: The Star agrees
with Mr. Sachs, and will call
Koreans Koreans.
Soft-Speaking 'Voice'
I want to express my gratitude to The
Star for David Lawrence’s column of
July 18, on the ineffectiveness of our
psychological warfare.
Mr. Lawrence is certainly dead right
when he states that the absolute in
competence of our Voice of America
cannot be explained by lack of funds.
I agree completely with him when he
says: "But the truth is that even if $100
million is appropriated, it would be in
effective if our Government fails to ex
press Itself forthrightly in the propa
ganda field.” I want to contribute a re
cent example of what he is talking
A few weeks ago. Count Joseph Czap
ski visited the United States. He is not
only a great Polish writer and a good
painter, but also one of the very few
survivors of the mass slaughter of more
than 15,000 Polish officers during World
War n on Russian soil. He was invited
to address the Polish people through our
Voice of America. When he submitted
the draft of his speech to the New York
office of the Voice, he was advised to
omit any mention of Katyn, where many
of the Polish officers had been slain.
This fits perfectly the answer I was
given by high officials of the Voice and
the State Department when I inquired
some months ago, why the Voice did
not broadcast the speech delivered by
our former ambassador to Poland, Ar
thur Bliss Lane, and his letter to Russian
Foreign Minister Vishinsky, both issued
at the occasion of the formation of the
American Committee for the Investiga
tion of the Katyn Massacre, Inc. Those
gentlemen told me: “It would create too
much hatred of Stalin among the Poles!”
I asked the gentlemen of the Voice:
“What do you want to create among
the Poles? Love for Stalin, at the ex
pense of the American taxpayer?” There
was no answer to this question.
There are still too many of the old
OWI (Office of War Information) em
ployes working for the Voice, both in
this country and overseas. I mean those
writers, translators and broadcasters
who so wholeheartedly and enthusias
tically tried for many years to create
“love for Stalin,” when this was the of
ficial policy of our ill-advised wartime
Government and of our Military Gov
ernment in Germany. There is no doubt
that all those employes were at that
time deeply convinced of the absolute
correctness of that pro-Stalinlst propa
ganda. How can we expect them to do
the exact opposite now?
Even if they try to do the impossible
—they certainly do not want to lose
their well paid jobs—they cannot change
their skin and speak with the same
power of persuasion against the bloody
monster in the Kremlin as they spoke
for so many years in its favor, when they
ardently tried to sell the story of our
“gallant ally,” the “democratic and
peace-loving Stalin.”
As long as the officials of our Voice
of America are afraid “to create hatred
against Stalin,” the real embodiment of
evil on earth, and as long as those old
friends of Stalin, now in the disguise of
weak anti-Stalinists, are allowed to run
the show, no good can come from it and
the money spent on that enterprise is
Julius Epstein.
New York, N. Y.
Movies at Incurables Home
In a time when the world is beset by
war and other major problems, it does
one good to remember one’s blessings.
One of the blessings or privileges
which the children have who live near
the Home for Incurables is to be al
lowed to see movies at that home. It
means a lot to the children, and I wish
to express my thanks to the people who
allow the children this pleasure, especi
ally since they have so little entertain
ment themselves besides the movies.
We are most grateful and appreciative.
Joan Murphy.
This and That ... By Charles E. Tracev/ell
“Dear Sir:
“In our garden club we talk about
gardening and birds.
“One of our members, who lives on
the shore of Lake Washington, has been
feeding Mallard ducks and their babies
for years.
• This summer the black birds have
come in great numbers.
“They are aggressive and even come
down ana peck the dog on the head.
“She would like to get rid of them
and tht annoyance, but is puzzled as to
how to go about it.
“What would you do?
‘ Our greatest thrill this summer is
the song of the russetback thrush at
"Best wishes to you,
“Sincerely, J. M. C.”
* *
Grackles and other “black” birds can
be driven away, in most cases, by per
sistent annoyance.
Clapping the hands at them, even
rushing outdoors, works in most cases.
Rolling a newspaper and aiming it,
like a gun, at the offenders, usually has
the desired results.
Any loud noise helps, if it is sudden;
the popping of an air rifle, even without
pellets, will often suffice.
It is human persistence, however, that
finally convinces them that they had
bette£ fly elsewhere. 4
Just one movement against them is
not enough.
Ail the larger birds, especially of black
hue, are persistent and self-willed.
They have the ego that seems to go,
in this world, with the larger creature.
Usually dogs are not afraid of cats, nor
cats of mice.
The larger birds, including the grac
kles, starlings, blue jays, crows, hawks—
All of these fail to be intimidated as
easily as some of the smaller species.
They may fly away, at one’s intrusion
into their worlds, but they will come
back, time and time again, if there is
something attracting them.
* *
All plans, therefore, to drive larger
birds away from some spot they are not
wanted depend primarily upon the per
sistence of the person who wants to do
the driving.
Usually these birds come in flocks, and
the mass excitement must be overcome.
So when one runs out to “scare” them
away one time, it is necessary thereafter
to run out many times, sometimes for an
hour or two, in order to get results.
Usually these prolonged frightenings
will convince the birds they had better
go elsewhere.
* *
The plan is much better than killing
them. There is enough killing in the
world. Harming one bird species to help
another cannot ba called conservation.
Even the hawks, although they get a
few birds each per season, do not in the
end exterminate any one species of bird.
Grackles often kill other birds, especi
ally their fledglings, just for the fun of
it, at least that is the way it seems to
the onlooker.
Grackles tear off legs and heads of
cardinal babies, then fly away, as if
satisfied, as, no doubt they are, as any
one can see by careful examination of
their cold yellow eyes.
Probably there is no meaner eye in
nature than that of our ordinary purple
Yet he is a fine creature, in his way.
His coat is one of many colors, flashing
from one to another in the sunlight. He
is a friend of some water birds, and
nests near them, without harming their
young in any way.
Look him over carefully, for his good
points; then, if he still persists in an
noying you, shoo him away in the man
ner suggested.
This shooing is not a one-time job,
but may require many repetitions, as we
have said; but in the end, it will work,
and work well.
There is no point in harming a bird
just because it pecks a dog or cat or hu
man on the head. Even little barn swal
lows seem to enjoy chasing other living
things from their nests.
Automatic Parachute
Solves Altitude Problem
Opens Only After Set Delay
And at the Proper Height
By Thomas R. Henry
A new automatic parachute developed
by the Air Force is believed largely to
have solved the problem of escape from
aircraft at high altitudes or high speed.
It opens only after an appropriate
delay after leaving the plane and at a
proper distance above the earth without
need for judgment on the part of the
With the automatic parachute all that
is required of a pilot is to get out of the
plane and pull the ball-type handle con
nected by cable to the automatic release,
which then takes over and opens the
parachute only after he has dropped to
a safe altitude. If the bail-out is made
at high speed and low altitude, the auto
matic release provides a five-second de
lay which allows the pilot to clear the
plane and slow down to a safe speed
before the parachute opens.
The release is designed to control
automatically the opening of the para
chute by means of both time and alti
tude delay. The timer is adjustable
from one to 26 seconds, but it usually
provides a delay of from five to seven
seconds. This is sufficient to reduce the
velocity of the fall, for example, to 130
miles an hour at 20,000 feet and to 120
miles an hour at sea level from an
initial velocity of 600 miles an hour.
Mechanism Is Set Beforehand.
The altitude control mechanism, how
ever, prevents operation of the para
chute release above a pre-set height. Be
fore the plane takes oft, this element is
set for an altitude 5,000 feet higher than
the highest point of the terrain over
which it is expected to fly. If this high
est point, for example, is 7,000 feet, the
altitude control mechanism is set for
12.000 feet. Should it become necessary
to bail out at 40,000 feet, the parachute
will not open until after a free fall of
28.000 feet.
At 40,000 feet the shock of the para
chute opening is four times as great as
at sea level. Also if the parachute opens
at this altitude, the descent will take
longer; and lack of oxygen and extreme
cold may well prove fatal.
* *
First intensive study of the chemistry
of human teeth is underway at the
United States Bureau of Standards.
This eventually may lead to methods
of reversing the decay process, which is
essentially a breakdown of the calcium
structure, and remineralization. It is
now known, according to a bureau re
port on the work, that great differences
exist in the resistance of different teeth,
even in the same mouth, to decalciflca
tion; and these differences are thought
to be associated in some way with the
maimer in which the hard, calcified
tooth structures are deposited in the
first place. As yet, however, no satis
factory association between tooth struc
ture and resistance to decay has been
Precise Measurements Made.
The bureau scientists are making for
the first time precise measurements of
the hardness of tooth enamel and den
tine and studying the abrasion and de
calcification of tooth structures due to
the chemical and wearing action of vari
out tooth pastes and powders. They
are taking pictures of the tooth struc
tures with the electron microscope, which
reveals them in greater detail than ever
before possible.
There is a suspicion that very minute
traces of rare elements, far too small to
be determined by any ordinary chemical
procedure, may have a very great effect
on tooth decay. For the first time it is
expected that it will be possible to
determine such traces.
Questions and Answers
The Star’i readers can set the answer to
any question of fact by either writing The
Evening Star Information Bureau. 1200 I street
N.W., Washington 6. D. C., and inclosing 3 cents
return postage, or by telephoning ST. 6000,
Extension 358.
Q. Is it still possible for a captain of
a United States ship to perform a mar
riage at sea?—S. H. S.
A. There is no Federal law regulating
marriages. The marriage laws are mat
ters entirely of State regulation and
there is no record of any State at pres
ent granting the right of a ship’s cap
tain to perform a marriage ceremony. A
ruling was made by the United States
Shipping Board (1926) declaring that
marriages performed by masters of
American merchant vessels are void. In
general, a vessel on the high seas carries
with it the law of the State in which it
is registered or has its home port, in
cases where there is no Federal law.
Q. Please give some information about
Alice Hawthorne, author of the well
known song, “Whispering Hope. ”—C.
A. Alice Hawthorne is one of four
pseudonyms used by Septimus Winner.
The others are Percy Guyer, Mark Ma
son and Paul Stenton. Winner was born
in Philadelphia on May 11, 1827. At an
early age, he studied violin, organ and
piano. When Winner was 20, he was
already a successful music teacher. In
1853 he opened a music store in Phila
delphia. Three years earlier, he had
published his first composition, “How
Sweet Are the Roses.” It appeared
under an arrangement of his mother's
maiden name, Alice Hawthorne. This
was followed by “What Is Home Without
a Mother.” Among Winner’s other com
positions are “Listen to the Mocking
Bird,” “My Love to All at Home.” "The
Snow White Rose,” “What Care I?” and
“Whispering Hope.”
Q What variety of fish builds a nest?
—L. L.
A. The stickleback builds a tunnel
shaped nest consisting of bits of water
weeds bound together with a tough
white thread which is produced from an
Internal gland.
Nebuchadnezzar Retold
The image stood there, terrible before
With silver arm and breast and thigh
of brass,
Like a rootless tree whose great metallic
Symboled the era that was soon to
The King was troubled sorely as he lay,
For suddenly a stone not cut by hand
Shattered the burnished feet. They fell
The idol crumbled for it could not
Now we the children of a golden age
Still pilfer heaven with a golden key.
Our sleep is troubled too, it would uncage
The scarlet dragon of all pophecy:
The image lingers with the dream forgot.
We toss and turn, and yet escape it not.
A «

xml | txt