Recently there came to our notice a booklet containing what purports to be a sermon delivered by one Bob Shuler, pastor of the Trinity Methodist Church, Los Angeles, bearing on its cover the statement that it is “published in pamphlet form because of the utter impossibility of securing the publication of such a discussion through any Los Angeles daily newspaper.” Taking for his text, “The Movie Industry vs. The Public,” Rev. Shuler devotes approximately four thousand words to what seems first a conviction and then a trial of the only screen star ever charged with a felony. He says: “That he was directly and absolutely responsible for her death, I am certain.” The worthy pastor then proceeds with the admission that “the attitude of the movie luminaries toward the marriage relation; their continuous ‘souse’ in divorce and scandal; their quarter of a century of screened sex appeal; * * * the evident looseness that has sprung up among them; their booze parties; their cigarette smoking beauties; their behavior as reported by scores who live neighbor to their studios; * * * all has forced me against my will and over my protest to believe that a majority of the movie crowd are of the same stripe * * *.” Having already found him guilty, Dr. Shuler then asks whether this actor is a fair, fit sample of a type, and promptly answers his question by saying: “I think you will have no trouble in recognizing that he is a most splendid example of a type, a most certain sample, of a variety of folk who have decided to be the independent authors of their own standards of morality or immorality, without regard to or respect for the public.” On the same day there was brought to us a copy of a daily newspaper containing about four thousand words under the heading, “In Loving Memory of Harry S. Duffield,” being a transcript of an eulogy delivered a few weeks ago by James Neill at the bier of his brother-actor and lifelong friend, from which we quote: “In all these years I never heard from these dead lips one irreverent oath. His thoughts were white and his speech was clean. By nature he was devotional. He believed in church attendance and private prayer, and in the constant reference of daily concerns to Divine guidance. His reputation for gentle judgment of his fellows was well known. Save to report good of his fellowman, he spoke not at all. * * * So good-bye forever, dear Harry Duffield, our best beloved, and may the dear, gentle God be very tender with you and give you everlasting peace and rest.” What power is theirs to soften pain, to educate, to instruct, when sent on some constructive mission. And what a world of destruction they can accomplish when their author’s purpose is to gain notoriety through misrepresentation, to besmirch clean men and women by fastening to a majority the alleged shortcomings of a few, and to entirely disregard the command of our Creator, “Judge not that ye be not judged.” * * * * *