The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-09-14

And back to that food we should all gladly
 go.
 For high cost of living
 Is causing misgiving;
 So comrades to you appeal
 Get back to corn dodgers,
 Ye modernized codgers,
 And eat your own homemade Corn-Meal. Just think of Corn-Meal and the things it
 will make;
 How close to us all and how easy to bake!
 Just think of the mullins, %
 The chitlins and stuffin's,
 And doesn't the thinking reveal
 That these and pot-liquor
 Will hit the spot quicker,
 With water-ground, home made Corn-Meal! W
 Then join us in singing to Corn-Meal song, The product that made our grandfathers so
 strong.
 Yes join us in singing,
 In chanting and ringing,
 With all of our national zeal,
 The praises of dishes
 That fill our food wishes,
 And's made of our matchless Corn-Meal!
 Vance o. Rankin, Atlanta, Ga.
 Will Hays Values Age-Herald Editorial To the Editor of The Age-Herald:
 The Age-Herald's editorial of August 1T concerning the Photoplay's Progress, with  provement, is appreciated by us.
 This editorial is not only helpful to the industry, but it aids in developing public taste for better things and to enlist their cooperation which is so essential in this effort.
 Thanking you for your helpfulness in this matter, and with kindest regards, am,
 WILL H. HAYS.
 New York, Sept 10, 1924.
 As to Underwood's Misrepresentation" To the Editor of The Age-Herald would ever and anon, or oftener, bawl out last Sundays paper you had the sheer au- dacity and bold effrontery to publish an article with this caption: "Underwood Mis- represents" While the late Democratic con- vention was in session "Plain" Bill Brandon would ever and anon, or tener, bawl out that "Al-a-bam-a cast twenty-four votes for Underwood" and he did it so impressivcly that it was considered worthy of some rec ognition, so he was presented a miniature donkey. And, too, some of his enthusiastic admirers contemplate embodyirg that most admireable slogan into a popular song. Be- sides that, some of our most ardent pro- hibitionists felt confident that he was the only man in the state who could, or would, enforce, the law. The Democrats having thus shown unmistakably where they stood have passed stringent rule to hold their voters-actually demonstrating the liberties of Democracy. Now, if "Plain" Bill had not considered Underwood the object deserving special consideration he would, while at the convention, have occasionally bawied out "Al-a-bam-a retains the infamous convict lease system" I feel sure that our honora- ble senator will soon lose interest in the prospective governor of Maine, and begin negotiating with "Ma" Ferguson to the end that she come over and protect the Demo- crats in his native (? state, for if he says they are afraid to poke their heads out after dark-they are, and that's that
 MRS. MINNIE G. ADAMS.
 Brewton, Ala.
 Shingles Versus "FireprOof Roofing" To the Editor of The Age-Herald:
 We have been informed that Commissioner w. B. Cloe of your city has presented an ordinance under the terms of which "all persons, firms and corporations are pro- hibited from placing any shingle or shingles on any house, building or edifice of any kind in the city of Birmingham.
 May we have the courtesy of little space in. The Age-Herald to discuss this subject in the light of intelligent research? From time to time this "anti-shingle" craze has broken out in various cities, but it had almost died out when the Birmingham case came to our attention. These "anti-shingle" drives are the result of propaganda in the interest of substitute roofing materials, few of which are fireproof or superior in any way to<good shingle roofing.
 Shingles of wood are combustible, and hence in drafting building ordinances due attention should be given to that fact On the other hand, wooden shingles are an eff cient, durable and decorative roofing ma terial and more inexpensive than substitutes for them, some of which are certainly 1n- ferior to shingles as roof covering, having in mind the purpose of such covering. The OfN Nuha fO hermit o. hibit the use of wooden shingles is an eco- homie one, the asnwer to which is to be de- termined by whether the cost of possibly in- creased fire hazard and loss through the use of wooden roofing material offsets the ad- ditional expense of construction and main- tenance resulting from the use of alleged or really non-c -combustible substitutes.
 Let it be conceded for the argument what is not a fact-that all the sparks caus- ing fine on roofs fall on shingle roofs. Sixty-eight and five-tenths per cent of the resulting fire loss occurs in dwellings, so that the latter have to be charged with less than two per cent. of the total fire loss so far as shingle roofs are concerned. If the entire annual fire loss in the Birmingham residence district is assumed to be $250,O00, then the loss in such districts that may be attributed to the use of shingle roofing is $5,000.
 Does even such loss expectation justify the uOuDllnS or ordinary EoO1lHS COSSS1 thS result of an ordinance prohibiting the use of shingles on the roofs of dwelling houses If 300 new dwellings, averaging $5,000 each, are erected in Birmingham each year, the additional building cost thereon necessitated by the proposed ordinance would be perhaps $30,000.
 According to the ratio of annual fire losses to the total combustible property valuation of the country, it may be expected that the fire loss on this Sl 800 O0O worth of prop erty will be about $27oO a year, of which possibly $81 might be charged to shingle roofs. It would take the expected shingle- caused fire losses more than S70 years to offset the added cost of roofing these 300 houses with some non-combustible material -disregsrding repairs and replacement dur ing that time, which would probably be as much for the substitute material as for shin gles. Moreover, it should be remembered that even this loss of $s1, derived from general statistics of fire losses, is modified Tn any community by the efficiency of it's