NEW YORK, Friday—The other night after Governor Dewey had made the speech in which he tried to tie up the present situation between himself and Lt. Governor Hanley with John J. Raskob and my husband, my secretary was called by two news services and naturally replied that if they would read what was written in Chapter 4 of my last book they would know exactly what happened.

Governor Dewey based his statement, he said, on Jim Farley's book, in the writing of which Mr. Farley was aided by Walter Trohan of the Chicago Tribune, and on Edward J. Flynn's book. I have not their books at hand to verify what they said, but it sounds to me more as though any attempt to tie the two situations together was probably based on some of the misleading columnists' stories which have not been too factual.

My statement in my book is completely factual and documented by a financial report sent me by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. One fundamental difference seems to me to exist. My husband, before he ran for Governor and at no time in his life, was indebted to anyone. He invested large sums of his own principal in Warm Springs, Ga., and therefore felt an obligation not only to stay there to improve his health but to stay there and watch over his own investment.

I was asked at the Democratic State Convention by Mr. Raskob and Governor Smith if it would make any difference in his attitude toward accepting the nomination if he knew that his investment could be replaced by contributions from other sources. As you know, both men are dead, but I think they must have told others at the time that both my husband and I said that while he welcomed contributions to the development of Warm Springs Foundation, those contributions would have absolutely no effect on his running or not running for Governor.

Mr. Raskob later made contributions to Warm Springs but they did not reduce my husband's investment. That was repaid to his estate by a life insurance policy which had been taken out by the Warm Springs Foundation many years before his death. There is absolutely no similarity between the two cases and I am astonished that even a harried politician would try to hide behind such a very poor excuse.

The mix-up on our new international security law is becoming funnier every day. One might sit back and really laugh if it were not in a way tragic, because we are becoming the laughingstock of the world. In addition, the fact that visas are being held up for everyone who wishes to enter the United States at the present time does bring about some very tragic results.

I have had pathetic letters and I don't know whether I will be able to help in the situations described in them. This poorly written law, born out of fear and enacted over the President's veto, seems to be tying us up in double knots.

The decision on Spain must have considerably upset Senator Pat McCarran, author of the law and friend of Spain. Members of Generalissimo Franco's Falange party are barred from entry into the United States because the party is a totalitarian one.

I imagine there will be a revision of the law when Congress reconvenes after Election Day—and the sooner it is revised the more respect we will command in the world.