Nora Waln (‘Letters from the Manchurian Border) is an old friend. She has lived in China for years, and few diplomats know the Far East as well as she. These letters come from Tientsin, where she occupies a compound next to that of Henry Pu-Yi, the last of the Manchus, who has recently been placed at the head of the new Manchurian state of Ankuo.Christopher Morley is Contributing Editor of the Saturday Review of Literature. ‘Two Enthusiasms’ was included in a scries of lectures which he delivered at the University of Pennsylvania last autumn as Rosenbach Fellow in Bibliography. The lectures will he published sometime this month by the University of Pennsylvania Press. ▵ For obvious reasons the author of‘The Road to Rome — and Back’ prefers to remain anonymous. Persons mentioned in the article are, of course, not called by their real names, but the experiences related are genuine in every particular. Thomas F. Murray (‘Milking Time’) has become acquainted with all the ins and outs of New York real estate as a statistician in the business.

‘The Foreigner’ is a page out of Bill Adams’s seafaring life. ‘On my first voyage,’ Bill writes, ‘I remember a little fellow named Shellberg — an able seaman who had a small son op Bergen way somewhere. I can see the shine of his eyes as he tells me of his kid. still see his fond face to-day. He was a likable little chap and a cracking fine sailor. I used to talk with him in the dog-watches, or while we’d be sitting together high aloft out on one of the rolling yardarms far above the sea, where, with me for helper, he would be doing some such job as reeving off a new footrope. I was always greatly interested in foreigners. I remember another one, a stubby fellow named Jensen. He had big round blue eyes, and a most amicable smile when anybody noticed him. He could speak scarce any English. Whether in the tropics or south of Stiff, he always wore heavy wool underwear, bright red in color.’

Ruth Reed (‘I Like Tuberculosis’ ) is the wife of Louis Reed, whose stories of the West Virginia mountains have appeared in recent issues of the Atlantic. When last we heard from her, she was still in the sanitarium. ▵ No educator in America speaks from wider experience than does Abraham Flexner (‘ Failings of Our Graduate Schools’). For many years he was connected with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and he is now Director of the Institute for Advanced Study in New York. Cornelia Sorabji (‘Gandhi Interrogated’) is a Parsi whose home is Calcutta. Educated at Oxford and admitted to the English bar, — the first woman to attain that honor, — she has spent her life working for the social betterment of her people. ▵ Formerly a member of the Atlantic staff, Theodore Morrison (‘ The Wood Lily ') is now an instructor of English at Harvard. James E. Baum (‘Salaam, Arabi!’) is a sportsman who has hunted big game all over the world, collecting specimens for the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. ▵ Formerly a law partner of Senator Dill of Washington, Harry Hibschman (‘Humpty Dumpty’s Rule in Law ') has recently devoted himself to writing and lecturing about the ills that afflict our system of jurisprudence. Charles A. Rawlings (‘Sponge Fishing’) is a Florida orange grower, ‘and the only white man,’ he says, ‘outside the sponge industry ever actually to cruise with the Greek spongers.’

Owen Tweedy (‘Jerusalem the Golden’) served through the war as a captain in the British Army. He is known as an authority on the Near East, where he has traveled intensively. Harry C. Neely (‘ Driver Ants’) is a missionary of the Presbyterian Church in the Cameroon. Katharine Ball Ripley (‘Drums in the Distance’) had her first book, Sand in My Shoes, published last fall. Ian Colvin (‘A Royal Week-end’ ) writes the political leads on the editorial page of the London Morning Post. Nicholas Fairweather (‘Hitler and Hitlerism’ ) is an American who has resided for many years in Europe, He became so deeply interested in the phenomenon of Hitler’s meteoric rise from obscurity that he has made a special study of the man, his ideas, and his methods.

Short Selling.

Dear Atlantic, —
Mr. Foster’s arraignment of the Stock Exchange and of short selling in the February Atlantic has ‘all the vitality of error and all the tediousness of an old friend.’ I have heard the same argument in various forms ever since ’93.
If it is immoral to sell for a purpose, it is equally immoral to buy for a purpose. In each case the purpose is the hope of a profit. In each instance securities are bought or sold for a difference in price. The sequence of the events in no way involves a question of morals, since there is no ethical difference, no economic difference, and no legal difference between buying first, and selling last and selling first and buying last. In selling short no injury is done, because one sells to a buyer, at his price, only what he wants and is willing to pay for.
Mr. Foster thinks the bears have contributed to the bread lines. Nonsense. The bear who drags a red herring across the trail now and then may temporarily interrupt the chase and excite the indignation of onlookers, but the harm done is of small importance compared with the real havoc wrought, as in 1929, by those cheerful and mendacious bulls who, with a pack of credulous and enthusiastic buyers in full cry at their heels, lifted prices to the skies. That was the time when economists should have sounded the alarm, yet actually they were proclaiming a ‘new era,’ with an unlimited ceiling in the azure.
Napoleon believed that those who sold short were guilty of treason. But Mollien, his Minister of Finance, replied: ‘These men are not the ones who determine the price: they are merely expressing their judgment upon what the price will be in the future. If they are wrong, and if the credit of our Stale is to be maintained in the future at its former high standard, these men will suffer the penalty, for they must go into the market and buy at the price then prevailing. It is their judgment, not their wish, that they express.’
Mr. Foster’s argument , as he himself admits, is based upon pure conjecture. He says, ‘ If short selling has had anything substantial to do with the sustained weakness of the market,’ something should be done about it. As he is unable to prove his case, he asks Congress to prove it for him. There is a tendency nowadays, when our intricate and complicated machinery does not function as we think it should, to call upon Congress to fix it. But how can a Committee of Congress demonstrate the truth or falsity of a purely theoretical assumption? It cannot be done, yet Mr. Foster says ‘this is the main issue and the only one. What Congress can do, and what friends of the Stock Exchange hope it will do, is to study the history of previous attempts that have been made to suppress short selling and the conclusions that have been reached. Briefly they are as follows: —
As early as 1732, Parliament enacted a law prohibiting short selling, which was repealed. Nearly a century later France did the same thing, and that law too was repealed. Germany tried it in the disastrous Bourse Law of 1896, which was repealed in 1908. The New York Legislature in 1812, and the Federal Government in 1864, each enacted laws to prevent short selling. Both laws were repealed. When our present Chief Justice Hughes was Governor of New York State in 1909, he appointed a commission of nine business men and economists, with Horace White as chairman, to investigate Stock Exchanges in general and short selling in particular. They reported unanimously against any interference with the practice of selling short. ‘Short selling,’ they said, ‘tends to produce steadiness in prices, which is an advantage to the community.’
These are but a few instances of many. All experience points to the fact — I think conclusively— that the prohibition of short selling results in a one-sided market, and a one-sided market is a lopsided market, in which fluctuations are wild, convulsive, and menacing to the whole financial structure. That is why the laws above mentioned have been repealed.
WM. G. VAN ANTWERPSan Francisco, California

[Yet on February 18, less than a month after Mr. Foster’s article appeared, the governing committee of the New York Stock Exchange acted upon one of the most important suggestions advanced in the article. ‘The new rule,’ said the New York Times, ‘will, in the opinion of brokers, reduce short selling possibly to the extent of 50 per cent.’ — EDITORS]

Who will cap this?

Dear Atlantic, —
Anent Agnes Cady Chitwood’s comment on Dr. Ritter and his Galapagos asses, I might add:—
Greater asses bray at home
Than those that Ritter’s island roam.
R. W. NYGRENLouisville, Kentucky

A last word from Paradise.

Dear Atlantic, —
The satisfying of our most necessary daily needs consumes so much of our time that there is little left for writing. Until now no strange hand has helped us in building the house or working the land. For the sake of the blessed solitude we shall continue to prefer to fight it out alone rather than submit to the disturbance that would be caused by a third person. Even the rare visits which the mail and other news from the big world occasionally bring us we regard as disagreeable interruptions of our apparently monotonous everyday life. It is precisely in its even pulse beat, and not in the pursuit of change, that we find our happiness and satisfaction. You may tell your readers that we have no intention of returning to civilization.
FRIEDRICH RITTERDecember 6, 1931 Floreana, Galapagos Islands

Levers and bootstraps.

Dear Atlantic, —
John Tomajan’s plan for a prosperous world is inspiring. The more I produce and sell and the less I buy and use up, the richer I shall be. And if everybody will only do the same, the whole country will become richer and richer and RICHER. It ’s immense. Take one little item, the matter of laundry. If every family in this country will take in one laundry each week at $5.00, that’s $5.00 added to its income. And if each family will also do its own laundry, that is $5.00 taken off its expenses. That makes each family $10.00 richer every week. For twenty million families that makes $200,000,000 a week, and for fifty-two weeks it makes an extra income for the country of over ten billion dollars a year. Enough to knock any depression on the head. Glorious! If we could only believe! The trouble is that in waking life there is that awkward difference between a lever and a bootstrap.
DAVID CUSHMAN COYLE New York City

[Mr. Tomajan did not say, ‘The more I produce and sell and the less I buy and use up the richer I shall be.’ The depression has taught many people, Mr. Tomajan among them, that the mere buying and using up of commodities is not an economic benefit unless they can be paid for; consequently he says that the first step toward solvency is to live within one’s income. If a man thinks he is aiding business recovery by buying a car when he can’t afford it, is that using a lever or a bootstrap? — EDITORS]

Barnum was right.

Dear Atlantic, —
I, too, believe— that is, theoretically; but here’s the situation: —
Last fall I made a substantial payment on the equipment of a business school in a town of about 15,000 people. The school had been closed for a year, but I was assured — informed, rather — that, ‘at least fifteen students were anxious to start to school; that many have come to ask if the school will soon open.’

None of the ‘fifteen,’ none of the ‘many,’ has appeared.
I have made a personal house-to-house canvass of at least four fifths of the town. I have now two students in the night school, three in the day — one of them working as a janitor for his tuition. My personal expenses have been cut about as low as possible. One cooked meal a day and one light lunch in my room suffice for food. Part, of my washing is done in the bathtub. My one expense for recreation is a dime each Sunday at church.
Yes, I believe, but . . .
A BUSINESS SCHOOL TEACHER

[No economist, so far as we have heard, has yet discovered a way to save us from the consequences of poor judgment. — EDITORS]

Jones’s troublesome budget.

Dear Atlantic,—
I cannot go very far with Mr. Tomajan and his creed as published in the February issue, I believe that his philosophy has such sinister implications that its adoption by any large number of persons would actually prolong the depression. Let me illustrate by considering the application of this plan to one family.
Bill Jones is a salesman, the head of a family of five. Before the depression Bill earned around $500 a month, but now he is lucky to average half that much. By drawing on his savings and using his credit, he has managed to get along so far without changing his scale of living. Reading Mr. Tomajan’s article, he decides that this is just what is wrong with the country in general and himself in particular, so he proceeds to balance his budget. He moves his family out of their $90-a-month apartment into one that rents for $50. Then he junks his car, which is very nearly worn out already. Mrs. Jones coöperates in preparing less expensive meals, using cheaper cuts of meat and eliminating various more or less costly delicacies. They reduce clothing costs by wearing their old garments longer, replacing them with less stylish clothes when it becomes absolutely necessary.
The Jones family budget is now balanced. But what about his landlord, the garage man, the filling station, the grocer, butcher, apparel merchants, and all the others who are dependent for their incomes upon what the Joneses spend?
R. F. SMITHOak Park, Illinois

[If Bill Jones knows what’s good for him, he will put Mr. Tomajan’s advice into effect without an instant’s delay. Unless he does balance his budget, he will soon exhaust his savings and his credit,. Then what about the landlord, the garage man, the filling station, the grocer, butcher, apparel merchants, and all the rest? Sadder still, what about Jones? — EDITORS]

A point of law.

Dear Atlantic, —
Two lawyers have written me about the following passage from ‘A Trial for Murder’ (February Atlantic): —
‘“All right,” said Hathaway. “Exception, of course.” ’
That there is material here for an argument will not be apparent to persons unfamiliar with the intricacies of common law procedure. The criticism is that Hathaway, the State’s attorney, would not &emdash if he were a competent state’s attorney — make this exception, because if would be unavailing. The point is that the State is not permitted to appeal from a verdict of Not Guilty.
It is a fact, however, that West Virginia prosecutors do sometimes except —particularly to rulings on instructions. They do so on the theory that if a conviction is had and the defendant appeals, the rejected instruction goes to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise the appeal court would never see it. There it may be used to show that the prejudice, if any, in the court below was in favor of, and not against, the defendant.
LOUIS REEDWinfield, West Virginia

Senator Watson’s one principle.

Dear Atlantic, —
Reading Frank R. Kent’s article in your February issue, I marveled that he could so damn without dooming his delightful subject, Jim Watson, whom I thus encounter for the first time and find myself loving. No principle? Hasn’t the man who knows how to be a friend to his friends achieved the acme of principle in thus being a Christian exemplar?
C. B. LOOMISLong Beach, California

[We fear there is more politics than Christianity in the urgent friendliness of professional office seekers. -EDITORS]

A new way to settle the debts.

Dear Atlantic, —
My Roman maid has been deeply interested in the discussion of debts and reparations, and although, since she speaks no English, the only point of view available to her is that of Italy, she has quick intelligence, a brain, and has formed her own opinion. Not for nothing did her direct forbears stand in the Forum, some two thousand years ago, to listen to the great Romans of the day! Clotilde sees cause and effect in proper sequence. Hotels empty of Americans mean hundreds of servants thrown out of work, cabmen idle, chauffeurs walking the streets, all the thousands upon thousands of hard-working people dependent upon the tourist industry in despair, their families undernourished or not nourished at all.
Reading of the suffering in America, she calls it a ‘fine shamefulness,’ an ‘ugly injustice and lack of delicacy,’ that we should be asked to cancel the debts. Moreover, she fears that, should cancellation go through, Americans, burdened with added taxation, will not come to Europe at all. To her, the circulation of Americans in Italy is like the circulation of good red blood, bringing health and well-being directly to a large class of Italians — her ow n class.
Turning it all over in her mind, she came to me the other day. ‘Listen, Signorina, it was a great mistake for America to lend so many millions. You should have kept the money in your own pockets; then you at least would have been in good condition and could have helped later, perhaps. But what is done is done. Now Europe says, “We will not pay.” Why cannot many thousands of Americans, kind and honest, come to all the hotels in Germany, France, Italy: take rooms and stay two, three, six months; and then say, “Now we have eaten, we will not pay”? Then Europe will see what it feels like.’
I offer you Clotilde’s idea as a debt solution. At least it is original and perfectly sincere — two qualities not often found in international discussions.
JULIA BIDDLERome, Italy

An amusing but natural mistake.

Dear Atlantic, —
As I read over ‘Felipa and Christopher Discover America,’ I came upon a misprint, entertaining but devastating. Christopher is made to say, ‘ Middle-Westerners make me feel sort of peppered with grapeshot,’ when what he really said was, ‘ Middle-Western rs’ made him feel that way. He and Felipa were talking of speech, not people.
HENDERSON DAINGERFIELD NORMANRolling Bay, Washington

[Our apologies to Christopher and all MiddleWesterners. A vigilant proof reader noticed the gap in what appeared to be a single word, thought the letter e had been dropped in typing, and zealously tucked it in. — EDITORS]