Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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