Newspaper Page Text
EDITORIAL PAGE
THE ATLANTA GEORGIAN
Published Every Afternoon Except Sunday
By THE GEORGIAN COMPANY
At 20 East Alabama St., Atlanta. Ga.
Entered as second-class matter at postoffice at Atlanta, under act of March 3, 1373
Subscription Price—Delivered by carrier. 10 cents a week. By mail, $5.00 a year.
Payable in advance.
Does Ingratitude Pay?
It Did Not Pay in the Case of Bacon, Who Infamously Attacked
His Best Friend. It Will Probably Net Pay in the Case of
William J. Bryan, Who for Selfish Reasons Deserted and
Attacked Champ Clark, Who Had Always Befriended Him.
An able man was Bacon, called the greatest philosopher since
Aristotle, and the originator of modern scientific methods. If it
were possible to estimate accurately the greatness of men it would
probably be found that Bacon was at least eleven thousand mil
lion times as able as William Jennings Bryan, of Nebraska. Yet,
in away, the men were alike. They were alike in ingratitude.
Bacon betrayed and personally prosecuted to the death the
>est friend that he ever had. He even showed especial vehemence
In prosecuting that friend because he feared that their past friend
ship might hurt him and wanted to obliterate the memory of it.
Bacon was almost as ungrateful and selfish a type of man as
William Jennings Bryan.
We have not yet seen the end of Bryan’s career, although we
are probably not far from it.
But we do know the end of Bacon’s life, and it is some com
fort for those who dislike ingratitude to know that Bacon died
and for a long time lived disgraced, despised by men in spite of
the great, ability which has given him a place in history.
If Bryan gets his just deserts ami the punishment that should
follow shameless ingratitude, he, too, will know the bitterness of
public contempt and ostracism before he dies.
An individual with an unusually dull mind publishes a por
trait of Bryan and puts under it a line to the effect that Bryan
was not fighting for himself, but for his party, at Baltimore.
Bryan, at Baltimore—as elsewhere and ALWAYS—Bryan
was fighting FOR HIMSELF, and for nothing else. He shame
lessly betrayed Champ Clark, the friend who had worked FOR
HIM during his entire career. He betrayed the voters that sent
him to the convention to vote for Clark. And with such cun
ning as he possesses and such provincial oratorical power as he
exercises, he strove, with meanness and ingratitude, to undermine
one man—his friend—while trying to keep back the other candi
dates and make himself the candidate in the end.
He failed, and it is a good thing that he did fail. Had he
been nominated he, of course, would have been defeated. Three
times the American people have expressed their opinion of his
type of character. But it would have been a calamity for the
Democratic party and a disgrace to the country had this master
ingrate again received the nomination.
He was beaten thoroughly and easily, and it appears in the
case of Bryan, as in the case of Bacon, that ingratitude is not to
be profitable.
Very appropriately, Bryan, while stabbing his friend Clark in
the back and planning also to eliminate the other candidates, was
beaten by Woodrow Wilson, who, in a famous letter some time
ago, expressed the desire that in some light and comparatively
painless way “William J. Bryan might be knocked into a cocked
hat.” Mr. Wilson’s question was. “How can we knock Bryan
into a cocked hat?” and the question has been unanswered by
Mr. Wilson himself.
While Mr. Rn’an was trying to nominate Mr. Bryan at Bal
timore Mr. Wilson stepped in and took the fat plum upon which
Mr. Bryan's eye was fixed—and the knocking into a cocked hat
was accomplished.
It is not likely that anything much will be heard about Mr.
Bryan hereafter as a presidential candidate. And it is quite prob
able that from being a prosperous mower of profits in the Chau
tauqua grain fields he will soon dwindle down into a pitiful
“gleaner,” whose earnings will not amount to much more than
those of the dutiful Ruth, when old Mr. Boaz gave orders to his
servants to let her pick up a little grain here and there.
Now that the convention dust settles and that the Old Man of
the Sea, Mr. Bryan, is off the back of Sinbad Democracy, it is
interesting to contrast him, not only with Bacon, who is dead, but
also, for instance, with T. F. Ryan, of New York.
Thomas F. Ryan is the man whom Bryan wanted to put out
of the convention. He did not succeed, by the way.
You have read enough about Thomas F. Ryan in these col
umns to understand that this is not what you would call a
Thomas F. Ryan organ.
If. however, in the course of human events, we HAD to bo
a Bryan or a Ryan organ, we should, after examining the work
of the two men, find it rather difficult to take the Bryan end of
the dilemma.
Ryan and Rryan are both engaged, supposed to be engaged,
in the transportation business. Ryan, as a street ear man, takes
people to the places in which they live. And Bryan has adver
tised himself as one that would take the Democratie party to
Washington and the White House.
As a success in the transportation business we prefer Ryan
to Bryan considerably.
Ryan at least does take the people somewhere WHEN HE
TAKES THEIR FIVE CENTS.
If you get on one of Ryan’s street ears or subway ears or
elevated cars YOI’ GO SOMEWHERE. After a reasonable time
you get off at your destination. You don't get off just exactly
where you got aboard.
With Bryan's political trait of ears it is otherwise. You
board that train, you pay Mr. Bryan his price, which is quite con
siderable, considering the goods delivered, and after your journey
YOI' HAYE GONE NOWHERE. You get off .just where you got on.
Bryan took hold of the Democratic party at about the time
that Ryan took hold of the street ear system in New York.
Both of them made a good deal of money each out of the par
k Continued in Last Column.
The Atlanta Georgian
Yet It Might Have Been Worse
By TOM POWERS.
Copyright. 1912, International News Service.
>
Iw j Mb J w
ms I VJISHVOU WOULD KAKE N f OH 1 THE NANC't LEE L.
ft I A&ATHINQSUIT FoRM'/COOk) feijsßOk she NT To SEA
|\ (gil THIS IS THE SIZE / \ MND/W SAILORLY WASAMONqTIiE CREVM
\\ ll 7==x ' HE WAS FRIED FOR A FEED.
PC-VX 1 (Ml?) ABOUT E4ISB dya CANNIWLSWEED
\N I VD- BUT I KNOVf HIS HEART WAS TRUE
' ' 4/f 0r 3 r wb I ==sl TRA la LA LA LA LA M "
'MA ' .
T'-mi s .
s h tgir -m
I
\ ; (CAPi 'l "" f 111’ BE LEAMINCjXous Mum \
AJ LZJ | WATERS Too COL D J
i\ I v
wA - t v AW '
I ■ JS BjLl -<CN |GlOOM~) ~~~
I t
A SLAVES OF FASHION
MEN are always deriding
women for being the slaves
of fashion, and declaring
that the sex that has no pockets
has no business with the ballot.
Nothing that their harshest crit
ic could say on the subject would
half do it justice. The dress of
the average woman, particularly if
she is inclined to be a little stout,
is a collection of Implements of
torture that would put the rack and
the thumb screws of the Spanish
inquisition to shame.
Lace a woman in a straight front
in which she can not take a long
breath or make a free movement to
save her life, and that pushes her
stomach up under her ribs and dis
poses of the balance of her anat
omy In unnatural places; perch her
up on two-inch French heels that
make every step an acute agony;
pin on her head four pounds of
false hair with 47 hair pins that
dig into her scalp at different an
gles, and you have before you a
creature who is undergoing tortures
that make the sufferings of the
early Christian martyrs look like a
picnic.
Yet this is the manner in which
fashion decrees that a woman shall
rig herself up when she goes forth
to enjoy herself. Furthermore, fash
ion, that demands its toll of life and
death, orders women to starve
themselves to be thin; to strip oft
their petticoats and go insufficient
ly clad to appear slimmer; to wear
thin slippers and silk stockings in
cold weather, and to appear with
bare necks and throats when the
thermometer is hovering around
the zero mark, and women meekly
obey though they kill themselves
by doing so.
When you contemplate the offer
ings of life and comfort and health
and happiness that women make on
the altar of fashion, it does look as
if their brains were cut on the
bias, and frilled in the middle, and
hobbled around the bottom, and
that the tit home of the entire sex
was the institution for tie feeble
minded.
You can't wonder that men gird
at them for being the slaves of
fashion, and rail them fools and
MONDAY, JULY 22, 1912.
By DOROTHY DIX.
idiots not to assert their own in
dependence by dressing in a ration
al and comfortable way, until you
take a look at men themselves.
Then you perceive that women
are not the real abject slaves of
fashion. Men are, for women, at
least, show some glimmer of re
bellion against the autocrat occa
sionally, while men follow the lead
er blindly.
A woman, for instance, conforms
to the general mandates of the ty
rant who decreed that dresses shall
be tight or loose, and hats small or
large, but she has enough origin
ality to try to make her own gown
or hat different from the others,
and expressive of her individual
taste, whereas a man would die be
fore he would put on a pair of
trousers that wasn't a duplicate of
those worn by every other man in
the street, and he would as soon be
accused of committing murder as
of having appeared in public in a
hat with a brim a quarter of an
inch wider or narrower than that
of Brown or Smith.
A man may have the courage to
lead a forlorn hope, or to try’ to
break the aviation record or drive
an automobile 90 miles an hour, but
he turns pale and faint at the mere
suggestion of dressing differently
from his neighbors. Old Dame
Fashion has got him under her
thumb, all right.
Men boast of the superior com
fort of their style of dress over that
of women, but between the misery’
of a straight front corset and a
high, stiff linen collar that looks
like a section of sewer pipe, heaven
knows there is little to choose. One
chokes you about the waist and
hips and the other around the neck,
and which is the most uncomfort
able and the most unhealthful no
body knows.
The collar has no justification on
earth. It is a harsh and hard
abomination that cuts off the blood
supply from the brain and holds the
head in a vise, and that adds 20
degrees of temperature to the body
in hot weather, yet no man dares
defy fashion and go down to busi
ness in a cool, comfortable Dutch
neck, such as women wear.
As a further proof of man’s ab
ject slavery to fashion, consider the
way he dresses in summer. Even
on the most tropical days he at
tires himself as if he were going
on a north pole expedition. He
puts on a woolen suit, a stiff
starched shirt, a three-ply stiff
starched collar, a thick silk neck
tie. Every layer of clothes means
that much more heat to be endured,
but while he mops the steaming
perspiration from his brow he dons
the coat and vest that will put him
in danger of perishing of heat apo
plexy before he gets home.
A few years ago a philanthro
pist. seeking to mitigate the suffer
ings of his fellow man in the dog
days, tried to induce men to leave
their coats and vests in summer
and wear shirtwaists, as women do.
The idea had everything to recom
ment it. It was comfortable, clean
ly. hygienic and even picturesque.
Abstractly, men were enthusias
tically in its favor, but when it
came to putting the theory into ac
tual practice they were so com
pletely dominated by fashion and
custom that they- hadn’t the brav
ery to do it.
In view of all these facts men
have no right to ridicule women
for the folly of their dress, or for
being slaves of fashion. We are
all tarred with the same brush. If
men point the finger of scorn at
women's straight front, women can
retaliate by calling attention to
their choking collars, and if women
show their laek of sense by wearing
too little clothes in winter, men
show their deficiency of intelli
gence by wearing too many in sum
mer.
As a matter of fact women have
a better excuse for being slaves of
fashion than men have, because
women dress to please men. They'd
be giad enough to be loose, and fat,
and comfortable, and would tro
about in flowing mother hubbards,
except that men demand trimness
and slimness in woman, and so
women have to sacrifice comfort to
that masculine ideal.
But women will take men how
ever they can get them, so men
have nobody but themselves to
please and no Justification for their
slavery to fashion.
THE HOME PAPER
Dr. Parkhurst’s Article
The Increase of Ourßail- IF
road Accidents
-and—
The Real Reason Why ||H||i
They Occur
Written For The Georgian
By the Rev. Dr. C. H. Parkhurst
NOT many people are suffi
ciently interested in figures
to be willing to study sta
tistics, even though they relate to
matters that are of vital popular
concern.
It sometimes results from this
that problems that wait upon pub
lic action for their solution are left
unconsidered and unsolved to the
sacrifice of the general advantage.
One of the features of our times
is the large and, we are authorita
tively informed, increasing number
of railway accidents and horrible
railway disasters.
So accustomed are we becoming
to such events that they are now
no more than a 24 hours’ sensa
tion. except to those who are im
mediately concerned—that is to
say, the wounded, and the rela
tives and friends of the slaugh
tered.
The showing we mA.te is an un
favorable one as compared with the
situation in Great Britain, where,
in 1906, for instance, the number
of passengers carried was greater
by four hundred million than in
‘the United States, and yet only 40
per cent as many were killed as
here, and only ten per cent as
many injured—a proportion all the
more surprising from the fact that
density of conditions in Great
Britain would naturally render
traffic both more difficult and more
liable to accident.
Many Accidents
Due to Negligence.
By one who has been for 27 years
in railroad service, and during all
that time a careful observer and
student of conditions, the published
assertion is confidently made that
a-t least 75 per cent of these fa
talities are due to the negligence
of employees.
If this is in the case, Is there
anything for an endangered and an
unnecessarily endangered public
to say or to do in the premises?
This negligence is certainly not
due to the failure on the part of the
railroad management to issue a
program of service and to con
struct a rigid system of rules and
regulations. The root of the dif
ficulty lies in the laxity of en
forcement, and that laxity is due to
two causes, the first of which is
that an American Is rarely willing
to do exactly as he Is told. He has
such a conception of the sufficiency
of his own judgment that he re
gards every ordinance promulgated
for his observance as something to
be more or less literally interpreted
and applied just according to the
impulse of the moment.
It cuts across the grain of the
American temperament to obey—to
do ABSOLUTELY AS HE IS OR-
Does Ingratitude Pay?
Continued From First Column.
ticular thing in which he was engaged. Each of them made, un
doubtedly, AS MUCH AS HE POSSIBLY COULD.
But in the results that each achieved there was considerable
difference.
Bryan took hold of the Democratic party sixteen years ago,
and earnestly and energetically year after year tore it all to pieces.
He nominated himself and was beaten three times. He lectured be
tween times, turning into cash the notoriety of his office seeking—
and that made him rich. But it didn’t do the Democratic party
much good.
Ryan also made plenty of money, and turned the street cars
into cash—a great many millions of it. But he found the street car
system antiquated—horses pulling dirty old cars lighted with oil
lamps. He left the street car system—he has not been connected
with it for some time, having made way for Morgan and others a
very different proposition, and certainly much better than he
found it.
Bryan has a big voice, and Ryan has a small voice—he doesn’t
earn his living with his voice. When he wants voices he hires
them—Elihu Root, et cerera. If Ryan had had a voice like Bry
an s voice at Baltimore he might reasonably have got up in hit
seat when Bryan attacked him and replied:*
“What right have you to attack anybody? What did you ever
do to earn the money that you get from the Democratic party ard
the people in general? What do you do for those that support
you? What have you done for the Democratic party but lead it
from one failure to another?
“While you have got rich, what has happened to your follow
ers? What have you done in law-making, what have you w-r
built? What will there be to show for you when you disappear?
I, at least, have built the street car lines and employed some tens
of thousands of workers. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?”
With all of Ryan's shortcomings, whatever they may be. it ’ s
a fact that, compared with Bryan, he looms up as a man who has
actually done something that he undertook to do; whereas Bry m
is and has been a mere cave of the winds—luckily for him, able to
chsrgc 2 gGw price for the noise that the wmti makes.
DERED. The average man among
us, of whatever kind or description,
has just intelligence enough to im
agine that it covers more ground
than it can naturally stretch itself
over.
Hasty Judgment
vs. Regulations.
That is the occasion of much
mischief on the part of men occu
pying a subordinate position, and,
in the case of railway employees,
results in substituting a hasty and
risky judgment of tlreir own in
place of regulations that have been
carefully thought out by men who
have a wider grasp and a keener
sense of contingencies.
A second cause of lax enforce
ment lies in the fact that railway
labor organizations have now be
come so strong that in many cases
the railway management stands
more in awe of the unions than the
unions do of the management; so
that when a locomotive engineer,
for instance, has been guilty of an
accident through violation of one
of the rules of the road, the union
rallies to his defense.
The grievance committee, strong
in tiie consciousness of the strength
of the union, fights it out with the
management, weak in its fear of an
impending strike, and the probable
Issue will be that by the time the
killed and wounded are in their
graves or under treatment in the
hospital the engineer Is back on his
seat and the long-suffering and
helpless public stands bj- wondering
when the next derailment or colli
sion will occur.
We have had three of them re
cently. It is all a matter between
the management and the unions,
and the poor public can either walk
or take the cars and ride to their
graves. Mr. J. O. Fagan (the au
thority referred to in the earlier
part of this article), in his recent
ly issued work on railroad manage
ment, quotes a railroad superin
tendent as saying: "With a free
hand we could put a stop to this
killing in a week.”
Seek to Elevate
Morale of Class.
Nothing need be said antagonis
tic to labor unions so long as they
work within their own rights and
do not seek to exercise those rights
In a spirit contemptuous to the
rights of the general public.
It would be much more to their
credit If, instead of using their
power as a means of escaping the
just penalty for their shortcomings,
they would seek to elevate the
morale of their class and to ani
mate It with a spirit prompting
to a finer and more generous loy
alty toward the public that it is its
privilege to serve.
