Newspaper Page Text
Watson, 'Bryan and Hearst
Chicago, 111., August 31, 1907.
Hon. Tliomag E/.- Watson,- Thomson,
Georgia.
Dear Sir- 1 was pleased to see hl
“The Investigator,’’ Omaha, Neb., of
August 22, 1907, page 4, as follows:
WATSON, BRYAN AND HEARST.
“Some intensely interesting rumors
flte afloat over the South, and during
the last few days have percolated in
to Various states north of Mason and
Dixon line; They appealed first in
the Georgian, edited by John Temple
Graves, where the editor said: ‘The
rumor of a political understanding
between Mr. Hearst and Mr. Bryan
is exciting more than ordinary Com
ment throughout the South and the
country. . . . .
“ ‘Watson, Hearst and Bryan are
natural allies, with slight and inconse
quential differences; they have the
same political convictions. They have
fought in the main for the same re
forms. They are each one pulsed
through and through with the same
consideration for the rights and lib
erties of the plain people of America.
Surely no light and trivial circum
stance, no small differences of opinion,
should separate men w r ho see so much
for which to fight in common, and
for which to hope in patriotic and
unselfish ambition. The Georgian,
aw-aiting with such patience as it can,
the confirmation of the rumored un
derstanding between Hearst and Bry
an, sends out the fervent wish that
it may be so, that it may be folllowed
bv the full co-operation of Tlios. E.
Watson.’
‘ ‘ The above statements taken in con
nection with the declaration of Clark
Howell, that the organized Democ
racy, at least in Georgia, has gone to
the ‘scrap' heap’ makes mighty in
teresting reading.”
Permit me also to call the attention
of Mr. Watson to a letter w’hich ap
peared over my signature in “The
Investigator” of May 16, 1907, as
follows, under the heading: “A Lit
tle Difficulty.”
“Editor Investigatory Allow me
to respectfully suggest that if you
and Messrs. William Randolph Hearst,
William Jennings Bryan, Thomas
Watson and Tom L. Johnson, Mayor
of Cleveland, Ohio, were to unite in
one platform in the coming contest
for the presidency of the United
states, and support each other, you
might put up a strong battle. As re
gards the ‘platform,’ I thought the
one you and Mr. Watson had when
Mr. Watson last ran for President
and you for vice-president of the
United States would be excellent. In
fact, the Populist party appears to
have some very good ideas. Now, ei
ther Mr. Hearst or Mr. Bryan should
be nominated for president if we
are to win.
“However, a little difficulty pre
sents itself here as to which of these
two gentlemen should be preferred
for president. So allow me to sug
gest that they might settle the ques
tion between themselves by drawing
lots.
“These five gentlemen 1 have nam
ed are patriotic, and have the welfare
of the people at heart. But you di
vide your ranks, and the Republican
party, which we may call the money
power, will move solidly against you
and throw you oyerboard. You five
gentlemen might meet privately, with
out any fuss, and settle the matter
among yourselves.
“THOMAS WRIGHT HURST.
“Chicago, 111/*
I also find in “The Woman’s Na
tional Daily,” St. Louis, Mo., of Au
gust 27,1907, page 2 (Arthur Wallace
Dunn). I had a long talk with a Dem
ocrat.
“The Republicans always do the
wise thing,” said this former Demo
cratic leader. “They may not all like
the man they nominate for president:
be may not be satisfactory to a large
number of the leaders, but they lay
aside their personal likes and dislikes
and nominate the man who will se
cure the largest number of eletcral
votes.”
Permit me to state to Mr. Watson,
in conclusion, that it looks to me as
though the Republican party would
vote the man of their choice in again
for president, unless such men as
Messrs. Watson, Hearst, Bryan, Tib
bles. editor of the Investigator; and
Tom L. Johnson, mayor of Cleveland,
unite and agree to work together and
go solid against the Republican party.
Praying God for you health and
happiness.
THOMAS WRIGHT HURST.
MARRIAGE—WOMAN’S WORK?
From an article in the September
Atlantic on “Why American Mar
riages Fail,” by Anna A. Rogers, we
quote the following: |
“Somewhere before the benedic
tion of the marriage ceremony might
be well inserted Amiel’s beautifully
cadenced words to women facing
their great life-work: ‘Never to tire,
never to grow cold; to be patient,
sympathetic, tender; to look for Ihe
budding flower and the opening
heart; to hope always; like God to
love always—this is duty.*
“Marriage is woman’s work in
the world —not man’s. From what
ever point it is viewed, physical or
spiritual, as a question of civic poli
ty or a question of individual ethics,
it is her specific share of the world’s
work —first, last, and always; allotted
to her by laws far stronger than she
is. And the woman who fails to
recognize this and acknowledge it has
the germ of divorce, in her veins at
the outset.”
The attitude here assumed strikes
us as both false and harmful. Why
should we, like Adam, still lay the
whole burden upon woman? And
why is marriage woman’s work any
more than it is man’s? The view
that it is woman’s specific work in
the world, her share of the duties of
life, is narrow, and utterly false to
our present day attitude toward
woman.
Every day sees some distinct ad
vance in the emancipation of wom
an from the shackles of a civiliza
tion that is still quite feudal in many
respects. It is too laate to advocate
the ancient notion that the sphere of
woman is to be limited to the house
and to the will and whim of her
“lord.” Marriage is just as much
man’s work as it is woman’s; and a
review of the records of the divorce
courts will show, we think, ihat oui
American marriages fail more often
because of the neglect of the man,
rather than of the woman, to perform
WATSON’S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
the duties and honor the obligations
of that relation.—The State.
GIRLS AND THE ILLUSIONS OF
YOUTH.
Everybody seems on a strike these
days. And categorical demands are
being made here and there in such
fashion as not only to upset business
but seriously to disturb other affairs.
News comes now from Sunflower,
California, for instance, that the
girls have' gone on a strike and have
made certain demands in categorical
form upon those who would seek
their hands in matrimony. A dozen
girls met in Sunflower and formed
themselves into a club. A certain
man offered himself to one of them
and the club formulated an answer
to the proposal in which they stated
the following requirements in a hus
band 1
That he prove his sincerity.
That he demonstraate that he is in
every way qualified to contract mar
riage.
That he is amply able to provide a
comfortable home for his bride, and
is willing to make provision for her
every need and comfort.
That he abstain from tobacco in
every form.
That he do not use intoxicating li
quors to any extent whatever.
That he be chaste and pleasant in
conversation; use no profane or im
proper language; spend his evenings
at home; not flirt with any woman,
and attend church on Sunday.
The wise fellow on the Washington
Herald, noting these demands, ex
presses the opinion that the Sunflow
er girls want “not a husband but a
demi-god,” and reads them a sug
gestive lecture as follows:
Ah, fond illusions of youth! Oh,
cheerful optimism of blushing girl
hood! The years will pass, Sunflow
er maidens. To that fine ideal which
you have pledged yourselves you may
remain constant yet awhile —martyrs
to hopefulness. But, like the lady in
the moated grange, moaning “he
cometh not,” you will tire of wait
ing. And when that time comes,
when you realize that it is a man
you want, not an angel, then you will
probably get him. He may have red
whiskers, and, if he chew tobacco,
you will excuse it; and though he
may take an occasional drink, you
will ascribe it to the nature of the
beast. Instead of staying home even
ings, he may sometimes play skat at
the corner grocery; but when at last
he dses come home you will welcome
him with smiling face. If he fall
over the cat, trying to get upstairs
in the dark, and should perchance
rap out a piratical word, you will
sympathize with him in that he has
a safety-valve for his wrath.
■ BUSH’S SPECIFIC
THE GREATEST BURN CURE ON EARTH.
Cures Burnt, Scalds, Spasmodic Croup, Eryolpolao,
Chilblains, Polson Oak, Sore Feet, Old Sores
and all Bkln Eruptions.
Atlanta, Ga., Feby. 6, 1899.
Mrs. W. H. Bush, Winder, Ga.
Dear Madam:—l have used your medicine tn my family In two cases
of severe burns—and relief was afforded Instantaneously. We always
keep It In our house. It Is a valuable remedy.
PHILLIP COOK. Secy, of State of Georgia.
Mrs. Bush’s Specific has relieved mere suffering than any ether
known remedy. It Is worth its weight In Fold to any family and should
be kept In the Home at all times. Price 25 and 50 cents per bottle.
Send for literature.
BUSH’S SPECIFIC CO., Winder.
W. H. SPRATS, Secretary and Treasurer.
It is a homely picture The Herald
draws —and we mean homely in it»
old sense; we do not mean “ugly.”
It is a pity, though, to dispel the il
lusions of youth and we fear that our
contemporary, while wise, is not
kind.
One thing that The Herald men
tions we do not see in the above cat
alogue. There is nothing in the long
list that bears on red whiskers. We*
admit we do not understand how the
Sunflower girls could have left th iff
out, except upon the theory that aft
er’ careful consideration, they real
ized they are in California, where
red w’hiskers flourish as the green
bay tree, and in the region which
produced the luxuriant hirsute at
tachment to the statesmanly chin of
the Honorable Jim Ham Lewis.
There is no proof, in truth, that
the Sunflower maidens object to
whiskers. Barring this The Herald’s
point is well taken. —The State.
NATURE’S OWN.
By Leila Mae Wilson.
Awuy where the forest was tangled
and
He found her one morning in May;
The glances of sunshine that fell
from her eye,
But welcomed and wooed him to
stay.
Just a sweet little Gypsy maid was
she,
With a heart like the skylark free;
Not a sorrow or care
Ere had found lodging there,
As her life rippled on to the sea.
Away where the city surged busily
on
He brought her at last to abide;
The lovelight still danced through
lashes of jet—
But closer she clung to his side.
Like a frightened bit of a child was
she,
Or a sand-piper caged by the sea:
And the dear little heart,
Ere it learned its new part,
Sighed again like the winds to be
free.
«b
Then over the hillside, along the
white road
Where once she had gambled in
Play,
He brought her again to the forest
so dim,
But no light in the closed eyes
lay.
And the mocking bird trilled a musi
cal lay,
And violets bordered the way;
The soft breezes kissed her,
As if they had missed her,
And wild roses blossomed all day.
—Woman’s Work.
PAGE ELEVEN