I like Beverley Baxter as a writer but his last few letters seem away off the beam. While he blames the British for voting against Churchill, he does not state that this was the first election since before Munich and maybe they were just giving Churchill a rest while they cleaned off his coattails.—Thomas Hayward, Leask, Sask.
• Baxter does come out with some good stuff at times and some equally silly stuff at others. His tip to buy Churchill securities (Feb. 15) ¡sail right for the man who likes Churchill’s offer of blood, sweat and tears. That is all the Conservative Party could offer the working class at any time, war or no war . . . Baxter . . . says: “In 1815 the House of Rothschild arranged . . . to bring news of the result of the Battle of Waterloo to London. The message . . . was: ‘Buy British Securities.’ ’’ This then was why the battle was fought, so that Rothschild could make money out of British securities. What a confession for a capitalist like Baxter to make! Not a message saying that England was saved ... If Napoleon had won, the message would have been sell British and buy French.— Hardy Wear, Vermilion, Alta.
• I . . . hope you can flag the Hon. Beverley down before he writes more in the same vein as “Cold Chill in Manhattan,’’ (March 1). His allusion to the “motley collection” of passengers . . . begins his chapter of errors. The porter who alluded to him as a “guy” undoubtedly considered hirn as just one of the “motley collection,” while the taxi driver who took him to the Ritz in silence was no doubt overawed by the continental labels . . . To high-hat his readers he speaks of the “Green Hat” author and a swank club. He quarrels at the inattention of a busy ticket seller at a very high-priced musical show and the fact that the people did not bleak line cheerfully to let him into his proper line. He speaks of giving a luncheon . . . at which a discussion was had that was no doubt of great moment, though off the record . . . Well, that is just fine . . . but what we want to know is where he gets all the U. S. dollars to spend at. the Ritz, high-priced musical shows and generally touring around the country? I am just wondering if the Canadian-born Baxter has not outgrown his pants since taking on such great. British responsibilities.— James H. S ted man, Sarasota, Fla.
• What did (Baxter) expect from the taxicab drivers? A royal greeting and a banquet? (See cut at right—-Ed.)— F. H. S., Chatham, Ont.
• I should like to express my great admiration for Beverley Baxter’s articles and hope they will never cease. Why people criticize them I cannot understand. No one is compelled to read his articles . . . My only criticism . . . is that they are too short.— W. M. Burnett, Calgary.
A Question of Accent
Re your article “Inside Rideau Hall,” (Feb. 15). One paragraph states Lady Alexander is a tall slender woman, like so many Englishwomen, the Queen for example. I take it you mean the present Queen. If so, I believe the present Queen was born at Glamis Castle in Scotland, so I don’t think that would make her English.— Isaac Newton, Areola, Sask.
• Why say they are English? The daughter Rose you also refer to as English and the Governor-General’s speech as English. How absurd. I have heard him speak many times and he speaks the Anglo-Saxon language with an Irish accent, as his home was in Ireland. And the Anglo-Saxon language has often been said to be spoken its best in Dublin. To distinguish accents, listen to the BBC and often you get the typical English accent of the Anglo - Saxon language. — Canadian.
Author Eva-Lis Wuorio, who has a Finnish accent, promises she'll listen closely.— '¡'he Editors.
Not the Slightest Politeness
To James Bannerman (“Our Men Are Mice,” Maclean’s, Jan. 1) and all the pitiful henpecked husbands of Canada: It takes some time before
1 get your magazine, but I was so impressed by your “cry” that, though a bit late, I want to tell you something and give you good advice.
The source of all this evil is, after my unobtrusive opinion, that there is a shortage of women in Canada. Over here, the shortage of men is a source of exactly the opposite. So, dear colleague, we can shake hands and wish each other courage and freedom.
We Dutch and European women are, in general, the slaves of our husbands, they have not the slightest politeness for us, even before marriage. A dishdrying man is a heavenly miracle over here and when their boots are not cleaned in time they start barking like a dog. But worse: to lift our bicycle upstairs into the hall, they simple won’t. Still worse they ask us to do so for them and don’t expect a refusal In the evening they sit
in their chair and command: Go and fetch me this, go and fetch me that, no matter if it is upstairs, in the cellar or at our neighbors . . . You want a kingsized miracle on a national scale. Well, let come to your country as many women as are needed to bring balance to the number of women and men. It will work perfectly, I am sure.— Mrs. N. J. Claus, Nijmegen, Holland.
Not the Only One
CBC’s Tower of Babel (Feb. 15) is an excellent description of the work being done by the CBC’s International Service, to the efficiency of which I can testify from personal experience as a listener in Europe. In one statement, however, Mr. Roberts is in error. He writes: “No private Canadian operator has ever manifested the slightest interest in transocean broadcasting, in any case.” In the latter part of 1928, James Richardson and Sons of Winnipeg installed a 2,000-watt short-wave transmitter on the roof of the Grain Exchange and with this I broadcast programs daily for two years or more. The station had a commercial license and its call letters were CJRX. It had world-wide coverage . . . (It) ceased to be a commercial station when . . . Ottawa informed us that they were no longer licensing commercial short-wave broadcasting stations. — D. P. P. Coates, St. Vital, Man.
Thanks for Maclean’s. I rush at it. —Dr. Stanier, Cobble Hill, B.C.
Can’t Please Everyone Dept.
Let me congratulate you on the cover of Feb. 15. I used to travel on ski trains myself years ago and I think the artist has hit off the atmosphere very nicely.— A. R. M. Lower, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
• Before mailing my Feb. 15 copy to Britain I cut off the hideous front cover as I would be ashamed to send my friends this conception of Canadian Youth, debauched and imbecile in appearance. There is so much that is ugly in present-day periodicals that it is surely up to a magazine of the high standing of Maclean’s to present only what is beautiful and elevating.—C. M. A., Victoria, B.C.
Our irrepressible cartoonist, Len Norris, has redrawn the Feb. 15 cover for C. M. A. to send her English friends —The Editors.
We can assuredly do without ridiculing the clergy. I am referring to the ill-advised drawing on page 56 (March 1) entitled “The hair keeps getting in my eyes” (about a monk with a mustache). There is nothing to be gained by such attempts to alienate and antagonize your readers. — C. M. Berchand, Detroit, Mich.
Only Dirt Farmers . ..
You are to be commended on your editorial expose of the McGill University resolution (March 1). No second guess is necessary to realize progressiveminded Frank Scott is the target. Carried to its logical conclusion no one but dirt farmers . . . would be eligible for public office.—J. H. Coldwell, Kathryn, Alta.
In regards to article by high-school girl regarding the Japs (Mailbag, March 15). Did she ever take a look at the Jap history? If so, I think she would sing another tune. But if she wants to see this fair Canada ruled by the yellow race, she is doing her bit to help it along. As to immigrants, there is room for lots of them, but may God let them be white.—F. Arnold, Edmonton, Alta.
Evolution and the Bible
It is nice to see that L. E. B. and Mr. H. L. Reeds (whe attacked evolution, Mailbag, March 15) have such wholesome faith in the Bible . . . On the other hand it is . . . depressing to think of the agnosticism such views would produce in millions of our young people who are versed in the irrefutable truths that science has uncovered . . . There is no need for this antagonism . . . The factual story of creation as told in Genesis collates perfectly with . . . science . . . Creation took place “in the beginning” as the Bible says it did. The evolutionary process was also established then and began its course of bringing to light those things the Bible tells of in its day by day accounts. Those days were periods of time that seem vast to us but to the Omniscient they may have been but passing phases. The solar day did not appear to life on earth until the sun appeared in the fourth “day,” hence it is evident that the Biblical day was not our solar day . . . (The story) is couched in figurative language that " requires the best efforts of the expert theologian to interpret the pungent truths presented.—John A. McLenhan, Edmonton.
The story you want is part of the Maclean’s Archives. To access it, log in here or sign up for your free 30-day trial.
Experience anything and everything Maclean's has ever published — over 3,500 issues and 150,000 articles, images and advertisements — since 1905. Browse on your own, or explore our curated collections and timely recommendations.WATCH THIS VIDEO for highlights of everything the Maclean's Archives has to offer.