MAILBAG

MAILBAG

HAIL ELIZABETH! — I or II

June 15 1952
MAILBAG

MAILBAG

HAIL ELIZABETH! — I or II

June 15 1952

MAILBAG

HAIL ELIZABETH! — I or II

Blair Fraser (in Backstage at Ottawa) says Canada was correct in proclaiming our Queen as Elizabeth of Great Britain, the Second, etc.. Queen. Inasmuch as there have been only three queens in their own right of Great Britain—Anne, Victoria and our present monarch—it is difficult to follow his reasoning.

Our present monarch’s designation correctly given is Elizabeth, of Great Britain, the First, Queen. She is also the first Queen Elizabeth of Canada. Good Queen Bess of England was never Queen of Great Britain as that realm did not exist until one hundred and four years after her death. Walter Scott, Vancouver.

What Is an Eagle-Load?

lie letter from L. P. Guichon in Mailbag (April 1), and his remarks regarding the golden eagle. Some

years ago in the U. S. tests were made to determine the weight which such an eagle could lift and carry off A full-grown and lusty bird was used and it was found that the outside weight which the creature could lift and fly off with was eight pounds, and at that it could rise only a few feet off the ground and, after dapping along for a short distance, was forced to come down to earth exhausted.

The golden eagle does prey upon birds and very small mammals, but as to calves, lambs and fawns they would have to be very tiny specimens indeed . . . the seizing and carrying off of young children by eagles, golden or otherwise, has been proven to be a pure myth.— C. H. Brown, Windsor, N.S.

• For many years I lived in Edzell, at the foot of the Grampians, thirty miles north of Dundee. During the lambing season I think it was in 1940 a golden eagle attacked some lambs, just a couple of fields away from the village. As it swooped the shepherd wounded one of its wings with his crook and it fell into a ditch. The shepherd with help got it into a sack and brought it into the village, made a large wooden cage and put it on show, charging sixpence for each visitor. A nice sum was collected for file Red Cross. After a couple of days the bird was sent to the Edinburgh zoo, but it did not survive.—Mrs. L. E. Byars, Liverpool, England.

Maclean’s on Active Service

I am one of the Canadian soldiers who are just winding up their service in the Far East, and will soon be on

my way home. During the past year I have received from time to time copies of your magazine that were sent over to the fellows with the publishers’ compliments. 1 would like you to know that I and many of my friends over here are grateful.

I personally like the magazine very much except for one of your writers, Mr. B. Baxter. I am afraid I am a little too much of a nationalist to enjoy the sort of tripe he writes.—Jules I. McGrail, Korea.

An Eyewitness Reports

A critic of your first-class article on Riel (Feb. 1, 15), on the faith of a snapshot, was telling your author that he was mistaken in saying Riel’s monument was “red-yellowish” and that only the year and “Riel” were inscribed on the monument.

My room is less than two hundred feet from the Riel monument and, when I read that, I walked to it and can now assure you that your author (W. O. Mitchell) was right and not the critic. The monument is yelloworange colored (the base is grey) and the date and month are inscribed on the monument (18 November). The inscription is partly defaced.—Maurice Deniset Bernier, St. Boniface, Man.

Maisie Sends Thanks

Please will you publish my letter to thank the readers for all the nice kind letters I have received. Please tell them that I have received so many letters it is impossible for me to thank all the senders, but I am very grateful. —Maisie Bromley, Scarthoe Road Infirmary, Grimsby, England.

Gunning for Mickey

If Mickey Spillane (Mickey’s Giving Murder a Bad Name, April 15) likes to write tripe, all well and good—for

him. There are thousands who will buy books with lurid covers. But let him not call writers of literature “longhaired jerks.” Their books will still be selling when his have gone the way of all trash.—V. Travers, Hamilton.

• Your story about Spillane’s writings only adds to the degeneracy engendered by those filthy books. It tears down, especially in youth, some of humanity’s noblest qualities.—F. T. Westmeyer, Seattle

Stetsko Came to Town

Your article, Hero of the Hunted i Men (May 1), by McKenzie Porter, caused great joy among tens of thouj sands of Canadians and Americans of ! Ukrainian origin and descent. We have j received greetings from numerous other j national groups who sympathize with j our cause.

j We have Yaroslav Stetsko, the de! served hero of the article, in our midst !

1 as a guest in Toronto . . . Sincere i ! thanks to you on behalf of the Ukrainian ! people of this city. — Ing Wasyl Bezch¡

, libnyk, Toronto.

I Where the Money Goes

June Callwood’s article, Biggest Man i on the Biggest Campus (May 1), has ! brought much comment from the ! University of Toronto family—all of it good. But, as Dr. Smith himself calls university financing a “nightmare,” it is not surprising one or two i sour statistics crept in. For the record, then, profits of the University of Toronto Press are used to publish I learned journals and to subsidize books by staff members of this university j and other institutions of higher learnj ing; they are not diverted to other | divisions. Likewise, any profits from i the sale of biologies by the Connaught | Medical Research Laboratories are | ploughed hack into medical research in Í the laboratories and the School of j Hygiene.Kenneth S. Edey, director j I of publicity, University of Toronto.

-

Baxter’s Friends and Foes

Look, why don’t you just pension i off Beverley Baxter for the good of your magazine, which is coming along j rather nicely? B. B. belongs to the ■ oil-lamp age of Disraeli and Gladstone. | Give Beverley a nice pension so that he can put on his slippers, his blazer, light up his pipe, sit by the fire and read Lorna Doone.— Father John L. Quinan, Halifax.

• The first article we read is Beverley Baxter’s. He is broad-minded and fair, ; and it is difficult for us to understand some of the harsh criticisms aimed at him.—Walter T. Hall, Pasadena, Calif.

• It is a great tribute to Baxter’s I personality that he should be so much ¡ criticized, as it is only the mediocre j who do not arouse so much outspoken j enmity or friendship. As for me, I am | a Baxter fan. I have always been ; impressed with the fairness of the London Letter, written by a Conservative, but without bias, and expressing the considered views of a real statesman and not a party politician.—H. Humphries, Cres-de-Cagnes, France.

• Although 1 am opposed to Baxter politically I have had considerable respect for his judgment. I also have a pretty strong stomach, hut when a man of his experience goes starry-eyed over a character as controversial and questionable as Gen. MacArthur, my tummy can’t take it.—Lynwood A. Walker, Swalwell, Alta.

• More power to Mr. Baxter and Gen. MacArthur.—Mrs. Wm. Wityshyn, Edmonton.

• Baxter must have associated with a very poor class of Americans while in the U. S.— F. L. Cooper, Fredericton.

• I suppose we can expect letters from Mr. Baxter on the subjects: “The good points of Chiang Kai-shek,” and “India is on the march, What will become of their harems?” (As Mahatma Gandhi and Mr. Nehru are not Conservatives their names may not be mentioned.) It is too bad that a writer in Canada’s national magazine, with so much ability and experience, writes in such a narrow vein.—J. D. Rogers, Bindloss, Alta. ★