Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.