Newspaper Page Text
EDITORIAL PAGE
THE ATLANTA GEORGIAN
Published Every Afternoon Except Sunday
B» THE GEORGIAN COMPANY
At 20 East Alabama St., Atlanta, Ga.
Entered as second-class matter at postoffice at Atlanta, under act of March 8. 18T>.
Subscription Price—Delivered by carrier, 10 cents a week. By mall, >5.00 a year.
Payable In advance.
The “Little People” Are
ALWAYS Robbed
M M M
Somehow They Do Not Seem to Get Used to It. By Learn
ing How to Vote They Could Change Conditions Perhaps.
But Being Robbed Is Easier Than Learning to Vote.
We have received a letter from a man who says he had
B small amount of money in a dishonest trust company in New
York. The substance of his complaint is that he can’t get his
money, and the other “little ones” can not get THEIR money,
because some “big people” must be thought of first.
The state of New York wants money out of the deceased
trust company. As a matter of fact, the officials of the state
that put the money in the trust company, like the officials of
New York city that put money in that trust company, might
well be held responsible for their lack of “judgment” or
worse.
.And equally as a matter of course, neither city nor state
should take precedence over an ordinary small investor who
lacked the opportunity that the state and city had to ascertain
the real character of the trust company, and who may have
been deceived and led on by the fact that the city and the
state were depositors in the dishonest concern.
The man who writes to us complains that “an individual”
has a claim against the concern amounting to $320,000, and
the banking authorities are unwilling to give the name of that
individual, who is holding off the payment of little claims.
Our correspondent must realize that a man who has a
claim of $320,000 is “a big fellow” and not one of the little
people. And a big fellow is treated very differently from little
people, M the little people ought to know by this time.
It is alleged that Andrew Carnegie contributed a good
deal of money to the dead and dishonest trust company that
bore his name. He was in no Way responsible for the dis
honesty of the company, he was not the owner of the com
pany. But because it took his name, he helped the company
with money. He would have done much better to state pub
licly his lack of confidence in the concern and the fact that
he had no connection with it. That would have protected
the little people who were doubtless led to deposit and lose
their money because his name was used.
This case of a trust company anxious to look after the big
people, and rather impertinent in dealing with little people
that have been robbed, is not unusual.
They say that the eels get used to being skinned. It
would seem that by this time the little people might also
get used to that painful process, for it is applied to them fre
quently.
The little people should remember that only united action
gets results. The hig and rich men are closely united. And
what is more, they have union and force represented in their
money.
Every dollar represents a day’s labor. A million dollars
represent the work that could be accomplished by a million
men in one day—deducting what it would cost those men for
food and clothing.
When a man has a million dollars, be can combine in the
signing of one single check the power exerted by a million men
in one day.
That is why the big men are powerful. They use, in com
pact form, the money that represents accumulated millions of
days’ labor.
You are not surprised to find an army of a hundred thou
sand men very powerful.
Why should you be surprised when you find that a man
who has in a bank the result of the efforts of a million men
can exert the power that one man can not exercise?
The little people must unite and work in a compact body,
as the dollars of the hig people are united and put to work
for the big people’s benefit.
And the little people must work AT THE POLLS before
election, as the dollars of the big people WORK UPON THE
CUPIDITY OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS, IN SECRET, AFTER
THE ELECTIONS.
The fact, is that our people have become accustomed to pay
ing little attention to government. They think and worry and
plan for half a day before they decide what sort of a hat they
will buy for the winter, and they try on a dozen suits of
clothes before they make up their minds which one to purchase.
But they pay very little, if any. attention to the selection
of officials, any one of which may cost them the price of
many hats and many suits of clothes. It will take a long
time for the people to take the trouble TO THINK, to interest,
themselves in government, to compel the passage of laws that
will let. them remove dishonest officials from top to bottom, and
the passage of other laws that will compel referring law mak
ing to them and empower them to initiate their own law
making.
Whaling Industry Doomed
The end of the whaling industry is in sight, according to
Rfry Andrews, who recently returned from Corea with valua
ble additions for the museums in New York City.
As in other fields the .Japanese have made the most of the
whale, and canned whale is eaten in the Orient as a substitute
for beef, which is costly and hard to obtain.
Only since the Russian War have the little brown men
made whaling a science, but already they have foreseen the
end of the pursuit, and are now engaged in perfecting a trawl
ing system by which a steady supply of fish may be relied upon.
Instead of the wasteful methods of our forefathers the Jap
anese have treated the whale with the same intelligent handling
that the modern packer bestows on the steer. Nothing is al
lowed to go to waste.
| Our propensity for killing will soon put the whale in a
class with the carrier pigeon and the dodo.
The Atlanta Georgian
THE JUGGLER
By HAL COFFMAN.
Y A z Bl \ V s r )
BR IP --
- - ■ • ———. •
Mark twain’s last book
was called "Is Shakespeare
. Dead?” and in it the fa
mous humorist, who had often
proved that he was no mere literary
clown, but a man of singularly pro
found judgment and most pene
trating Intelligence, ridiculed, in his
inimitable way, the time-honored
legend that William Shakespeare,
or Shakspere, or Shagsper, or what
ever really was his variously
spelled name, had written the im
mortal plays and poems that go
under the name of “William Shake
speare.” Notwithstanding the stud
ied silence of most of the Shake
spearean literary critics, who would
apparently have been glad if the
world could be kept in ignorance of
what so widely read and univer
sally praised an author as Mark
Twain thought on this subject. Ills
book has recently appeared in a
European edition of English mas
terpieces which everybody reads,
so that the attempt to smother it
has notably failed.
Followed the Footmarks.
Mark Twain was simply follow
ing and illuminating the footmarks
of many able writers who have
traversed this ground since Delia
Bacon opened the controversy more
than half a century ago. Probably
hundreds of books and pamphlets
have been published with the aim
of proving that Mr. Shakespeare,
of Stratford-on-Avon, was not and
could not have been the writer of
the Shakespeare plays and poems;
that, at best, he was nothing more
than a fairly good actor, whose
knowledge of the world and man
kind was confined to what a play
actor, in those days when play act
ing was a profession that culti
vated people looked down upon,
could acquire; that he was so igno
rant that It is a nice question
whether he could even write his
name; that he died without the
slightest public notice being taken
of his death and leaving no trace
of books, manuscripts, notes. let
ters or any, the least, of the in
numerable things which a great
thinker, writer, scholar, poet and
philosopher (such as the author of
the plays evidently was) must nat
urally have possessed; that many
of the greatest of the plays made
their first appearance YEARS AFT
ER HIS DEATH; that he never
claimed to be the author of the
masterpieces bearing his name, and
took no interest in their preserva
tion; that hundreds of the most
wonderful lines In the great plays
were added by an unknown hand
after he was in his grave, and many
other remarkable facts of a simi
lar nature. It has also been shown
that he was a person of so little
importance that not a scrap of gen
uine information exists concerning
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1912.
Who Was Shakespeare?
By GARRETT P. SERVISS
his schooling, if. ever he had any,
or concerning the manner in which
he acquired his universal knowl
edge or developed his matchless
power of literary expression.
Yet the plays and poems were
w ritten by some one! Who was it,
then? Most of those who have un
dertaken to demolish the Shake
speare legend have assumed that it
was the great scholar and universal
genius of that age—Lord Francis
Bacon —and that Shakespeare, the
actor, was simply a puppet used by
Bacon to conceal his authorship,
because, at that time, and particu
larly because of the political sig
nificance of the plays, it would have
been fatal to Bacon to be known
as their author.
This is the view taken by Sir Ed
win Durning-Lawrence, w’ho lias
just sent me a copy of a pamphlet
written by him on “The Shake
speare Myth!” I do not find this
pamphlet to be as convincing as
many of the more extensive works
on the subject that I have read,
but I mention it as showing how
vain is the hope of the defenders
of Shakespeare of Stratford through
thick and thin that they may be
able to discourage further question
ing by denouncing all doubters
with contemptuous and scurrilous
epithets. THERE ARE AS GOOD
SCHOLARS AND AS ABLE
THINKERS ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE QUESTION AS ON
THEIRS. I do not think that I
could recommend to any intelligent
person a course of reading qf more
fascinating interest, or more in
forming'. than that which would be
furnished by an attentive perusal
of the best that has been written
“Votes for Wimmin”
By DAMON RUNYON.
| HEAR Plunk Peters talkin’ down in Kerry’s drum one night
About this votes fer wimmin, w’ich Plunk Peters right.
I hadn’t thought so, neither, but if Plunk is in the fight,
I'll take a chanst on Mother an’ the gals!
Now Plunk has got an inch o’ space betwixt his eyes an’ hair;
He could hide behind a gimlet an’ have lots o’ room to spare.
So when Plunk sez votes fer wimmin is the bunk, I must declare
I’ll take a chanst on Mother an’ the gals!
Sez Plunk: “When wimmin git to vote, where will us fellers be?
They’ll vote us out o’ office jest as sure as shootin’, see?
An’ they'll be no more good gravy from them public jobs for ide.”
So I’ll take a chanst on Mother an' the gals!
For I’ve knowed Plunk fer twenty years, an’ I am here to state
They ain’t a hair in Peters’ head that's even nearly straight;
An’ I never had no show to date when Peters fixed the slate —
So I'll take a chanst on Mother an’ the gals!
■ on both sides of this curious con
troversy. The “anti-Shakespear
ists” have one disadvantage—they
have, as the nature of the subject
rendered inevitable, attracted to
their side a number of persons who
ordinarily are looked upon as
"cranks,” and whose concurrence
is rather an obstruction than an aid
to their cause.
An Appeal.
Now. I am not going to express a
definite opinion on the question as
to who really did write the great
est masterpieces that English liter
ature can boast, but I am going to
make an appeal foi a concerted ef
fort, by competent scholars, to clear
up the mystery. There are many
who think that an exploration of
the Shakespeare tomb at Stratford
might cast a great deal of light
upon it. Why, then, should not
such an exploration be made? To
speak of “profanation” in such a
case is in itself a profanation.
Others are of opinion that a more
thorough search than private means
have yet rendered possible of the
innumerable depositories of books,
pamphlets, manuscripts, letters, etc.,
which exist in England and else
where might have surprising re
sults. Many discoveries, bearing'
more or less upon the subject in
controversy, have already been
made in unexpected places, one of
them in London, only two or three
years ago.
What is needed is ORGANIZA
TION and MONEY, and the world
at large would, surely, be as much
interested in knowing who the “Wil
liam Shakespeare” whom it has been
taught to revere as the foremost of
all its geniuses really was, as in
knowing the character of the ice
covering the south pole.
THE HOME PAPER
Dorothy Di x
Writes on
In Other
People’s ifTjßb
Houses
1
Youth and Age,
She Says, Can
Never Reconcile
Their Varying
Points of View
AN old mother went to live with
her son, whose wife’s mother
also lived in the same house.
Both the son and his wife did all
they could to make the old lady
happy, but she disapproved of the
manners and point of view of the
daughter-in-law’s mother, and felt
it to be her sacred duty to express
her opinion freely on the subject.
Trouble ensued.
Then the mother went to live
with her married daughter, but she
didn’t like her son-in-law’s rela
tives any better than she did her
daughter-in-law’s, and she likewise
felt it nothing more than right, and
her privilege, to vent her senti
ments, thereby stirring up strife
again, and precipitating • another
family row.
It appears that before mother ar
rived on the scene both her son
and her daughter were on the most
affectionate terms with their “in
laws,” and got along beautifully
with them, and because they re
fused to sever these kindly ties,
and take mother’s part in the fool
ish quarrels, she feels that she has
been very badly treated, and calls
them undutifui children, and re
gards herself as a persecuted mar
tyr.
Os course, there is no use in
telling this old lady that her son
and daughter are right, and that
there’s just one person more fool
ish than the individual who is al
ways getting into quarrels, and
that is the one who takes up some
body else's quarrel. Nor is there
any good in telling her that, so far
from having a grievance in her
children loving- their ‘‘in-laws,” she
should be down on her knees
thanking heaven for the miracle
that has been vouchsafed in their
behalf.
The Conceit of Age.
Nor is it worth while to remind
her that other people have just as
good a right to their own code of
ethics and conduct as she has, and
that she holds no divine commis
sion to go around reforming the
world, and forcing other people to
measure up to her little narrow
inch rule.
Colossal self-conceit is one of the
unlovely characteristics of age that
only the biggest and broadest
minded people escape. By the time
a woman has admired herself for
sixty-odd years vanity becomes an
incurable disease. By the time she
has been sure she was exactly right
for half a century you could remove
a mountain easier than you could
shake her faith in her own infalli
bility, and her mind is as imper
vious to the suggestion that she
might be in the wrong as a granite
.bowlder is to the prick of a cam
bric needle.
Old people always think they are
Solomons; that their way of doing
things is the only way; their point
of view the only correct one, and
this is what makes it so difficult
for any old man or woman, and
especially an old woman, to live in
another person’s house.
The old woman quarrels with her
daughter-in-law because the
daughter-in-law doesn’t keep house
exactly as she did, and doesn't
bring up her children just as she
brought up hersk and because
daughter-in-law goes out to clubs
when she never did, or wears tight
skirts when she wore hoop skirts,
or she uses the* best china every
day when she always kept hers
uttsW- and key, and brought it
out only uu ai4M«- —tensions.
By DOROTHY DIX
. Or the old lady nags and frets at
her son-in-law because he smokes
when she disapproves of tobacco,
or he has beer with his dinner
when she is a W. C. T. U.. or he has
old chums of whom she is suspi
cious. or because he will read the
Sunday newspaper instead of go
ing to church.
It never occurs to the old lady
that her daughter-in-law may be a
far more intelligent woman than
she is; that her way of keeping
house and raising children may be
a thousand times more scientific,
or that the daughter-in-law's way
may represent the advance in prog
ress of a generation, and that even
If It doesn’t, the daughter-in-law
has just as good a right to run her
own affairs in her way as she had
to run hers in her way.
It Is Impertinence.
Nor does it dawn on her that any
man who pays for the support of a
home has the privilege of doing in
ft as he pleases, and that it is an
Insolent impertinence for any out
sider to Interfere with him.
Mother-in-law is always an un
welcome guest, whether it is in her
son’s or her daughter’s house, and
it is her own fault in the majority
of cases that this is true. And it is
true because she can not keep her
finger out of her children's pies.
Because a woman happens to be
the mother of her host or hostess
does not make her any the less a
guest under his or her roof, and if
she could only remember this, and
conduct herself according to the
rules laid down by decent society
for the guidance of guests, it would
enormously augment the sum of
human happiness.
Because a woman is staying In
her son’s house gives her no right
to try to boss it and Iter daughter
in-law’, or to criticise’ the bread
she eats. On the contrary, it should
make her that much more discreet
and chary of making sugga-tions
Daughter-in-law will ask for her
advice when she wants it, and the
wise thing is to withhold counsel
even when it is requested.
Nor does the fact that she is liv
ing with her daughter give a wom
an the right to police her son-in
law and make herself disagrees Ms
to him. On the contrary, as h®
pays for her board with her society,
ft is all the more up to her to makt
that society agreeable, soothing and
flattering.
Are Not Adaptable.
Old people are not adaptable, and
ft seems impossible for the woman
who has ruled supreme in her own
house to take second place in some
body else’s. It is likewise impossi
ble for a mother to realize that her
children ever grow up, and that
when they are married they have a
duty to husband or wife that comes
even before their duty to her. This
is why the advent of the mothcr-is
law in a famfly is almost invariably
the beginning of trouble, and whf
no mother should go to live
any one of her married childre
it is possible to avoid it.
Undoubtedly daughters-io''’'
and sons-in-law are not ange w
live with. They lack much '*£
tience and consideration in dealing
witli their wives’ and hu.-L
--mothers. But mother's skirt
not clear, either, and th'
wlio has really her children - 111,1
est at heart, who loves th- z
selfishly, will go to an old
Koine before she will 8" ■ 1
witli them.
