Mailbag

Mailbag

The case of Mom Whyte’s kids

March 16 1957
Mailbag

Mailbag

The case of Mom Whyte’s kids

March 16 1957

Mailbag

The case of Mom Whyte’s kids

Surely there is a moral in the story of Mom Whyte and her eighty kids (Should They Let Mom Whyte Keep Her Children?, Feb. 2) . . . How the federal

government and parliament are able to sleep on a five-billion-dollar budget while the kids at Mom Whyte’s are getting less than the best is not understandable. Let the prime minister add the eost of running this home to the budget and he will reeeive only praise. There is no need to say we cannot do it—man, we’re loaded! — H. J. GIËSBRECHT, HALIFAX.

• In a land where thousands of children become schizophrenic from what even science has begun to diagnose as lack of love, there are those who censure Mom Whyte for cutting through denominational red tape and taking literally the teachings of Christ whom our churches claim to serve . . . God help

US all.—MISS M. RANDOLPH, VANCOUVER.

• You have done a skillful job of describing the Whyte “haven" and clearly indicated the dangers in this type of child care. — MARIÓN MURPHY, ACTING

SECRETARY, FAMILY AND CHILD WELFARE DIVISION, CANADIAN WELFARE COUNCIL, OTTAWA.

• Mrs. Whyte is a saint and may God some day place a few more like her in some of our so-called helping agencies.

— MRS. E. BUNKE, NEW TORONTO, ONT.

• I visited Mrs. Whyte’s haven recently and was APPALLED.-MRS. J. P. PATERSON, DON MILLS, ONT.

Where do you fly (lie Hag?

In Peter Whalley’s Jan. 5 cover the centre stamp, Canada As A World Power, puts the Union Jack in second place to the flag of the U. S. Artists should be careful always to show our flag on the right side. Am I right? — F. II. HUGHES, WINNIPEG.

The patriotic gleam Is in the left eye of Whalley’s figure, which seems to he correct from Whalley’s position. But actually military etiquette—hut not law— says that our flag should he flown on the right, which would be in Whalley’s figure’s right eye.

No sympathy for a wolf

According to Parade (Feb. 2) a dog caught in a trap calls for sympathy, but a wolf suffering in the same manner is merely funny. An interesting sidelight on the hypocrisy of our moral attitudes.

— MISS S. .1. STEVENSON, TORONTO.

In Defense of Elvis

Clyde Gilmour gave a very prejudiced view on Elvis Presley’s film. Love Me Tender (Jan. 19). I'm inclined to think he didn’t even see the picture. Presley’s acting was superb, his singing as good

as always. Sure he’s different, but weren't Sinatra and Johnnie Ray too?

-MARGARET LAM PI, COPPER CUFF, ONT.

Gilmour sees every picture lie reviews.

Do teachers have it tough?

In Maclean’s of July 21, 1956, Hugh MacLennan spoke of “having spent ten years teaching in an elementary school —a job so tough that everything I have done since seemed easy. Now whose experience is quoted in Careers in Canada (Jan. 19)?-FRED RICHARDSON, OT-

TAWA.

The Jan. 19 article describes working conditions for teachers as ‘‘excellent.”

Who are our friends now?

In his report from Baghdad (Feb. 2) Blair Fraser makes much of the respect Canada has gained among the undemocratic Arab nations, but he says nothing about the friendship she has lost in Britain by lining up on the side of Russia and Egypt.—n. K. WELLS, STANSTEAD, QUE.

What’s behind “painless charity”?

Re Why I’m Against the United Fund by Rev. William P. Jenkins (Jan. 19): The chief reason for a United Fund is that this had been proved to be the most effective method of obtaining essential funds for the great number of charitable institutions in metropolitan centres . . .

Surely Jenkins displays less than a full measure of charity when he protests against Protestants being “compelled” to support Catholic charities and Catholics being “compelled" to support Jewish charities . . . Actually, he is wrong.

Any contributor may specify the charities to which he wishes his donation to be applied, although most don’t.—J. E. THOMPSON, TORONTO. ★