About a year ago I subscribed to THE CENTURY because I wanted to read "Bull-Cooks." Recently I renewed my subscription for a two-year period because I have come to feel a need for the magazine. It is one of four that I read from cover to cover. Some of your articles are "hard labor" for my sort of mentality, but I study them because I believe they are good for me; "The Withered Arm," for instance. I have come to know you so well that I am always sure of a zestful treat after conscientiously trying to do justice to "deep stuff." This month I was especially delighted to find "Whistle-Punks" after absorbing psychology from Joseph Jastrow-hence this letter.

When I am through with this issue it will be going the rounds of our lumbering operation as did "Bull-Cooks"; and like "Bull-Cooks," I expect it will finally get back to me covered with Douglas fir pitch, donkey cup-grease, and no doubt in this instance, smears of "choc'lit-bars" too. Mr. Holbrook knows his loggers.

Westimber, Oregon.

My dear Editor,

D. C. E.

I picked up the August number of THE CENTURY, by accident, not having read it for years, and I must confess the accident gave me a most delightful surprise. There is a thrill in every article, even to one who is just a plain every-day sort of reader, neither critic, author, nor indeed a very literary person.

"The Withered Arm," "The Short Ballot in Literature," "Acadians in the Flood," "Ripened Years," were gripping, and I am not usually nor

very easily impressed. But if I had a voice in the selection of Best Stories of 1927, I should certainly name your story, "Beyond Sound of Machine-Gun" by Llewellyn Hughes, as worthy of a place in such a list.

Pardon this effusion. It is my first offense.
Respectfully yours,

ELIZABETH R. KIMBALL

Worcester, Massachusetts.

My dear Editor,

In the September issue, in an article entitled, "Debts and Our Allies," Charles L. Guy makes some statements which, I feel, cannot be permitted to pass unchallenged.

I would not quarrel with Mr. Guy on the debt settlement, as I am not competent to do so, but it seems that his zeal to make a good case for cancellation, has lead him to make statements which cannot be substantiated.

For example, in explaining how defenseless the United States was in 1917, Mr. Guy states that we had "no navy capable of transporting troops across the Atlantic in safety." May I ask Mr. Guy to look up the records of the American navy for the period 1917-19? He will find that the "unprepared" navy conveyed two million men across the Atlantic without loss.

...

"Without coöperation of the Allied Governments, we faced a certainty of defeat . . . even our very existence as a separate nation, was imperiled." This statement, unfortunately, does not fit the facts. Mr. Guy seems to feel the United States and Germany were engaged in a war into which the Allies stepped to save us from a “certainty of defeat." Rather, the Allies were close to defeat when the United States entered the conflict.

And finally, "Of course they do not like us. Who does like a braggart?" That from an American. Our nation has its faults and one of them is speaking too readily of our virtues, but has Mr. Guy discussed France with a Frenchman or England with an Englishman? He will find that other nationals praise their fatherlands as heartily as we do. And although there are "apologetic" Ameri cans, has any one seen an apologetic Englishman?

In closing, may I remark that I have followed the arguments pro and con for cancellation and that Mr. Guy presents nothing new on the subject? Very sincerely yours, J. L. EVERHART

Syracuse, New York.