Chapter VI: Investigations, Legislation, and Meetings

=Type of story.= News stories of various kinds of meetings constitute a distinct class. In the term “meeting” are included sessions of state legislatures, meetings of municipal councils, conventions of various organizations, and meetings of local societies. Investigations and hearings as conducted by committees of legislative bodies are also placed in this class, although they are often more like judicial proceedings.

The purely informative type of story is the common form for reporting meetings, investigations, and hearings. The parts of the proceedings that are of general interest and significance make up the contents of such stories (cf. “State Legislature,” p. 116, and “Meeting of Safety Council,” p. 120). In meetings of some importance are to be found humorous or pathetic phases that may be brought out legitimately to heighten the interest and to emphasize the significance of the proceedings (cf. “Hearing on Proposed Ordinance,” p. 113, and “Testimony in Investigation,” p. 110). Some meetings lend themselves to humorous treatment, and when the news interest in them is slight, such stories about them constitute typical human interest stories (cf. “Old Clothes Men’s Meeting,” p. 122).

=Purpose.= To give the facts accurately and as completely as their significance warrants should be the first aim in reporting proceedings of official bodies, because, like court proceedings, they are matters of public concern. The desire to accomplish some end, no matter how laudable that end may be, does not justify distortion or suppression of the news of the doings of official bodies. A constructive purpose, such as that of exposing sinister influences that may be affecting legislative action, is entirely justifiable, but distortion or suppression of facts in order to make out a stronger case is not legitimate and should not be necessary. Politically partisan news stories that misrepresent public matters in order to create opinion favorable to the cause that the paper upholds, whether they be reports of official proceedings or of political campaign meetings, not only hurt the reputation of the newspaper that publishes them but tend to cast doubt on the truthfulness of newspapers generally.

Much more effort should be made by newspapers in this country to show the significance of acts of representative public bodies, in relation not only to the home and business interests of the individual reader, but to the welfare of the community, the state, and the nation. Intelligent interest in government on the part of the individual citizen, which is generally recognized as absolutely essential to the success of a democracy, can be more effectively created through the news columns of the daily newspaper than by any other means.

=Treatment.= To make interesting what is often considered dry and unattractive in proceedings of various public meetings, is the chief problem in writing news stories concerning them. Simple, clear explanation of the meaning of significant parts of the proceedings, lively accounts of debate on various measures, and vivid description of persons and scenes connected with them--all add to the interest of the stories. Too often, however, insignificant incidents of casual interest are played up as features of meetings of importance to the subordination or even to the exclusion of matters of vital concern.

Testimony in investigations and hearings sometimes has dramatic phases like that in court trials. The questions and the answers in these proceedings are handled like those in court stories, and testimony is dealt with in much the same manner (cf. “Congressional Investigation,” p. 109 and “Testimony in Investigation,” p. 110).

To select the vital matters, to present them concisely, and to condense routine but necessary details into the smallest possible compass in stories of this class, require effort and skill.

* * * * *

NOTE--_The following two stories give
the results of the first two days’ work in the
investigation of conditions growing out of a coal
strike. Both were sent by the Associated Press._

CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION

(1)

_Chicago Inter Ocean_

CHARLESTON, W. Va., June 10.--The power and
authority of the government of the United States
came to West Virginia today to determine who is
responsible for the conditions which have kept the
state in virtual civil war for more than a year.

Opening the investigation of the coal mine strike,
which has dealt death and destruction in the Paint
Creek and Cabin Creek mining sections, the Senate
mine strike investigating committee tonight called
upon the military authorities for the records of
the proceedings prior to, and under the declaration
of, martial law in the strike territory.

Judge Advocate General George S. Wallace, Adjutant
General Charles D. Elliott, Major James I. Pratt,
Captain Charles R. Morgan and Captain Samuel L.
Walker were summoned before the committee this
evening, to produce the state records regarding
the declaration of martial law and the proceedings
of the military committee which was placed in
authority in the strike district.

Senator Borah of Idaho desired their testimony and
their records as a basis for the branch of the
inquiry which he is conducting, as to the charge
that citizens have been “arrested, tried and
convicted in violation of the Constitution or the
law of the United States.”

Opening his case under the section of the Senate
resolution authorizing the investigation which
directs an inquiry into this subject, Senator
Borah, at a brief session of the committee this
afternoon, read into the record several excerpts
from the constitution of West Virginia. The first
was the provision declaring that the constitution
of the state and of the United States shall always
be in effect. The second provision declared, under
no circumstances shall the right of habeas corpus
be denied.

The third was the usual provision that no citizen
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law. The fourth set forth
that the military authority shall not supersede the
civil powers, even under the plea of necessity, and
others provided for trial by jury in open court for
all criminal offenses.

The activities of the state authorities in
connection with the strike will be probed by
the committee, in view of these constitutional
guarantees, and the charge that the mine workers
have not been accorded their full rights will be
investigated with these provisions in mind.

A formidable array of counsel was on hand. For the
miners there appeared Frank S. Monnet, formerly
attorney general of Ohio, Seymour Stedman of
Illinois, and M. M. Belcher and H. W. Houston. The
operators were represented by Z. T. Vinson, E.
W. Knight and C. C. Watts, with a half score of
assistants.

Two lengthy preliminary statements were filed with
the committee by the attorneys for the operators.
The first was filed by Mr. Vinson for the operators
generally, and the second by Mr. Watts for the
Paint Creek Collieries company. Both were pleas of
“not guilty” and both denied in detail and in toto
the charges made in the resolution passed by the
Senate authorizing the inquiry.

The operators in their brief made the counter
charge that the United Mine Workers of America,
in its attempts “to organize” the coal miners in
the West Virginia field, was responsible for the
violence which has characterized the strike.

The operators declared they expect to prove that
firearms and ammunition were brought into the state
“for acts of lawlessness and violence, which were
designed to keep the Paint Creek and Cabin Creek
mines idle and prevent shipments of coal therefrom
until the United Mine Workers of America should be
recognized.”

The statement presented by the Paint Creek
Collieries company made similar denials and similar
charges.

Former Governor Glasscock, who was Governor when
the strike began and who declared martial law in
the district, will appear before the committee
on Thursday. He sent a telegram to the committee
today offering to testify, and at the suggestion
of Senator Borah it was arranged to examine him on
Thursday.

* * * * *

(2)

_Chicago Inter Ocean_

CHARLESTON, W. Va., June 11.--War time rule in the
coal strike regions of West Virginia was described
before the Senate mine investigating committee
here today, and after three military officers had
told of conditions, the committee expressed itself
as satisfied as to the charge that “the citizens
of West Virginia had been tried and convicted in
violation of the Constitution and laws of the
United States.”

Two members of the military committee, which
at three different times have assumed absolute
dominion over some 150 square miles of West
Virginia territory, testified. They were Captain
Charles R. Morgan, a lawyer, and Major James I.
Pratt, who was president of the second military
court which took charge of the strike district.
Both told the committee that their proceedings
were conducted without regard to the civil laws
of the state; that they arrested, arraigned,
tried, convicted and sentenced offenders without
recourse to civil courts and without regard to
the limitations imposed by the statutes of West
Virginia.

“We considered that the strike district was in a
state of actual warfare,” said Captain Morgan, “and
we acted according to the procedure of the United
States Army in time of war.”

“But the constitution of the state provides,”
interjected Attorney Monnet, for the miners, “that
the military shall be subordinate to the civil
power, and that no citizen, unless engaged in
military service of the state, shall be tried or
punished for any offense that is cognizable by the
civil courts of the state.”

“My understanding was,” replied Captain Morgan,
“that during the state of insurrection which
prevailed, the constitution of the state of West
Virginia was suspended by the acts of those men who
were burning, killing and destroying property.

“We believed that to perpetuate the state of West
Virginia and restore the constitution was to use
extreme measures.”

A dozen pictures of men clad in prison clothing
were identified by Major Pratt as those of men who
had been sentenced by the military commission. One
man was given a sentence of seven and a half years;
several others were given three, four and five year
terms.

“Was there any indictment against these men?” asked
Senator Borah.

“No,” answered Major Pratt; “they were arraigned on
charges prepared by the judge advocate general.”

Senator Borah elicited that Captain Morgan, as a
lawyer, believed that there was no appeal from the
decision of the commission, if approved by the
Governor, except to the Supreme court of the United
States.

“Then a man did not have to commit a statutory
offense to make himself amenable to the action of
your commission?” asked Attorney Monnet.

“No.”

“You could arraign him for anything that in your
estimation was an offense?”

“Yes, except that the Governor’s proclamation
specified statutory offenses.”

Senator Martine ascertained that after the
commission had heard the testimony in a case it
went into secret session, executed sealed findings
after the manner of a verdict, and sent them to the
Governor. It was developed that forty-nine accused
men were tried at one time by the commission.

“There was no opportunity given a man to secure a
new trial, or bail, no possibility of a stay of
execution; your decision was final,” suggested Mr.
Monnet.

“Yes.”

“If you had sentenced a man to death, there was no
way of stopping the execution?” asked Senator Borah.

“We did not contemplate imposing death sentences,”
replied the witness.

Adjutant General Charles D. Elliott occupied the
morning session and part of the afternoon session.
Tonight Senator Borah took up witnesses produced
by the Mine Workers to testify as to charges that
peonage obtains in the Paint and Cabin creeks
sections. A hundred brawny miners came in from the
hills today, and the attorneys for the Mine Workers
weeded out the witnesses they wanted to call.

Following today’s speedy work, the committee
decided to divide up the inquiry tomorrow, allowing
Senator Borah to proceed alone with the peonage
investigation, and probably requiring Senator
Kenyon to begin an individual inquiry into general
conditions in the strike zone, while the remainder
of the committee take up other branches of the
inquiry.

* * * * *

TESTIMONY IN INVESTIGATION

_Milwaukee Free Press_

NEW YORK, Feb. 3.--Mrs. Mary Petrucci, a coal
miner’s wife, today told the federal industrial
commission how her three small children met death
at her side in the Ludlow strike massacre of 1914.

Women wept and tense faced men bent forward
eagerly, as the bareheaded, black clad woman, in
low, passive tones, reflecting the deep melancholy
of her face, recited the dramatic events of the
night of April 20, when fire and machine guns swept
the strikers’ camp in the southern Colorado hills,
collecting a toll of twelve children, two women
and five men. It was a remarkable recital and a
memorable scene.

Mrs. Petrucci is 24 years old. She was born of
Italian parents in a Colorado mining camp. She was
married at the age of 16 and had four children when
the strike of the Colorado Fuel & Iron company
employes was declared in 1913. She lost one child
in March of the following year as a result of
privations occasioned by the strike. With the grief
of that loss still upon her she went to live in the
tent colony at Ludlow after the strikers had been
driven from the company settlement. There the final
tragedy of her life was enacted.

She took the witness stand today with listless
manner and haunted eyes. Throughout her testimony
she alternately bit at her finger nails and twisted
in her frail hands a cotton handkerchief.

Her sweet voice at no time rose above a
conversational tone, and the matter of fact manner
in which she told the story of her grief served
only to bring out with more striking force its
tragic import.

“Yes,” she said in answer to Chairman Walsh’s
questions, “we had good times in the tent colony.
I liked it there better than in the company camp.
Over there the militia came up every day and
insulted us. The Sunday before the fire was the
Greek Easter. The men in the camp celebrated it.
We had a baseball game, and that night there was
singing, and the boys came with banjos and we had a
good time.”

Into this background of merriment she fitted the
picture of the woe that followed.

“April 20 I didn’t leave our tent at all,” she
said. “Our tent was No. 1, and right behind it was
the maternity tent. A cellar had been dug in that
tent and there several babies were born while we
lived in the colony. We also had a cellar in our
tent. It was about 6 o’clock that night. I was
down in the cellar and smelled a fire. The children
were playing around. I went up and discovered that
the tent was all on fire. I seized my children, and
taking one in my arms, I got another by the hand,
and the other one took hold of my skirt and we ran
out of the tent.

“When I ran out I saw a lot of the militiamen
around. They hollered to me to look out and were
shooting at me as I ran. As quick as I could I ran
into the maternity tent and down the steps into the
cellar.”

“You are sure you saw the militiamen,” asked Mr.
Walsh.

“Oh yes, sir,” replied the witness. “They were
about twenty-five yards away.”

“And could they see you?”

“I saw them. And they hollered at me; yes, sir.”

She looked at Walsh with frightened eyes as if
recalling in her mind the scene of the night and
continued:

“There was a door down to the cellar inside the
tent and there were earth steps. The door was left
open as I went down, and I don’t know how it came
to be closed later. When I got down in the cellar
there were three women and eight children there. I
knew them all. I had my baby in my arms. It was six
months old. The others were close to me and my boy
had hold of my dress.”

Twirling the handkerchief in her hands, the woman
looked over at Mr. Walsh and in a voice from which
all emotion seemed to have been drained, she said:

“He would have been 5 years old yesterday--my boy.”

“You lost all three of your children there?” said
Walsh.

“Yes, sir,” she replied, soft and low. “I lost them
that night.”

And again she twisted the handkerchief into a knot.
A woman on the front row of benches sobbed audibly.
A shuffling of feet and the deep breathing of the
spectators swept over the room. Mrs. Petrucci gazed
dully at her questioner.

“We were in the cellar about ten minutes,” she
said, “when the tent over our head took fire. I
don’t know how it started. It was not on fire
when I went in. Pretty soon after that we all lost
consciousness.”

“But before that,” asked Walsh, “didn’t you try to
escape?”

“It was all on fire over our heads,” replied the
woman simply.

“Did you do anything to save your children?”

“What could I? Oh, yes. There was a woman there
with a blanket. I asked her to share it with me
for my babies; one was 6 months, you know, and the
other 2½ years, and my boy 4. She told me it was
only big enough for herself.”

Mrs. Petrucci sighed. It was the only display
of emotion she made during the recital. That
blanket--a corner of it might have saved one of the
babies from the suffocation that quickly overtook
all there. She sighed at the recollection.

“The next I knew,” she continued plaintively, “was
when I woke up at 5 the next morning. I ran out
for water for my babies. They were lying there. I
thought water would help them. I did not know what
I was doing. I felt like I was drunk. Outside I saw
guards walking down the railroad tracks. They were
laughing. I kept turning back all the time. I was
afraid they would shoot me.”

Again the frightened look came into her dark
ringed, black eyes. A score of women in the
audience were weeping now. Save for their smothered
sighs the room was in absolute silence. The
clanging of a bell on one of the lower floors of
the Metropolitan building rang out like a funeral
note.

“I went to the railroad station,” said Mrs.
Petrucci. “I didn’t know what I was doing. I asked
Mrs. Horning to go look for my babies. She said she
could not find them. Someone bought me a ticket
for Trinidad. I was in bed there nine days with
pneumonia. I did not see my children again.”

A woman on the front row groaned and Mrs. Petrucci
looked down at her with dazed eyes.

“Don’t you know how the fire started?” asked
Commissioner Weinstock.

“No, sir; the beginning of the fire was in my tent.
It was about 6 o’clock. It was still light. It
started outside.”

“But when you went out didn’t you see anyone?”

“No, sir, only the militiamen.”

For a full two minutes the commissioners gazed
silently at the woman. Then finally Weinstock asked:

“When you went to the railroad station what did you
think had become of your children?”

“I wasn’t thinking of anything,” replied Mrs.
Petrucci, clasping her handkerchief to her breast.

Mother Jones took the woman in her arms as she
stepped from the stand and led her away.

Andrew Carnegie will probably be called on Friday.

* * * * *

HEARING ON CITY ORDINANCE

_New York Herald_

If there is any general opposition to an ordinance
to guard the public against the nuisance of smoking
automobiles, it failed to develop at a public
hearing in the matter held yesterday afternoon by
the Committee on Laws and Legislation of the Board
of Aldermen. One man appeared when opponents of
the bill were asked to express their views, but he
admitted that the ordinance would be a good thing
if operative only in Manhattan.

He was Herbert G. Andrews, of the Committee on
Laws and Legislation of the Long Island Automobile
Club. He said the club favored the abatement of
the nuisance, but would like to have the ordinance
altered in certain respects.

In the form introduced by Alderman Nicoll the
ordinance is identically the same as one now in
force prohibiting smoking automobiles in the parks.
It says that “no person shall run a motor vehicle
in the streets and highways of the city of New York
which emits from the exhaust or muffler thereof
offensive quantities of smoke, gas or disagreeable
odors,” and that “any violation of the provisions
of this ordinance shall be deemed a minor offence
and, upon conviction thereof before a city
magistrate, shall be punished by a fine of not more
than $10 or by imprisonment in the City Prison, or
by both; but no such imprisonment, however, shall
exceed a term of five days.”

Mr. Andrews suggested that the word “offensive”
be changed to “excessive” and that the fine be
graduated--slight for the first offence and heavier
for subsequent offences.

William H. Palmer, of the New York Transportation
Company, a taxicab concern, said that it would be
easier to determine the offence if the ordinance
made some reference to the distance at which smoke
extending from an automobile was unlawful.

In support of the bill there appeared many persons,
including two women. Alderman Nicoll said that
smoking automobiles were the cause of a great blue
haze often to be found at places such as Columbus
Circle and Forty-second street and Fifth avenue.
The smoke penetrated stores, he said, and made it
necessary for merchants to keep their doors and
windows closed to protect their goods.

The alderman told of riding in a taxicab from
Cortlandt street to Fiftieth street on Thursday
afternoon and of passing one hundred and sixty-four
automobiles, of which, he said, thirty were smoking.

Paris, London and Berlin have laws prohibiting the
emission of smoke from automobiles, he said, and
the law in force in Paris is even more drastic than
his ordinance.

Dr. Holbrook Curtis corroborated Mr. Nicoll in his
claim that smoke had a bad effect on the health
of the people who inhaled the fumes. He said it
was especially injurious to persons suffering from
gastritis.

Mrs. John Rogers, as chairman of the Hygiene
Committee of the New York City Federation of
Women’s Clubs, pleaded for the passage of the
ordinance for the sake of little children, whose
noses and eyes were affected by the smoke, she
said. Mrs. Katherine S. Day, of the Women’s
Municipal League, also urged the passage of the
measure.

Others who spoke in favor of the measure were
Charles J. Campbell, counsel for the Hotel
Association of the City of New York; Frederick G.
Cook, president of the Fifth Avenue Association;
John C. Coleman, of the West End Association, and
William Kirkpatrick.

Mr. Coleman said that on the upper west side
chauffeurs often vie with one another to see how
much smoke they can emit and how much noise they
can make.

The claim was made that the emission of smoke
could be prevented without difficulty, and nobody
contradicted the statement. Taxicabs were said to
be the worst offenders.

* * * * *

HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE

_New York Times_

Nearly 500 persons living in New York who raise
chickens on their fire escapes, in their backyards,
or on vacant lots, for eating purposes or for their
eggs, went by invitation to the offices of the
Department of Health yesterday afternoon and made
a mighty protest against the proposed ordinance to
prohibit the raising of hens within seventy-five
feet of the nearest residence or public building,
and the keeping of roosters anywhere.

Their complaints against the hardships of the
regulations under consideration were heard with
great patience by Dr. Haven Emerson, Deputy
Commissioner of Health, in charge of the Sanitary
Bureau. Dr. Emerson had difficulty in keeping order
at the meeting, because all the chicken owners were
disposed to talk at once. On this account, too,
many of those who probably had good arguments to
use against the tentative ordinance were unable to
get a hearing.

The lecture room on the fifth floor of the
Department of Health Building was packed with
chicken owners long before 4 o’clock, when the
meeting was called to order by Dr. Emerson. The
gathering was composed of every kind of chicken
raiser, from the head of a family which kept
just two pullets for their eggs, to the fancier
who boasted of the finest breed of fowl in large
numbers. Seated on either side of Dr. Emerson
were several members of his staff, including Dr.
John Barry, Assistant Sanitary Superintendent of
Queens, and Dr. John Sprague, Assistant Sanitary
Superintendent of Richmond.

The meeting was opened by Dr. Emerson, who
explained that the Sanitary Bureau had received
more than 14,000 complaints on account of chickens
since the first of the year. Furthermore, he
asserted that inspectors were occupied one-third of
their time investigating applications for permits
to keep chickens, or complaints about them. He then
started to read some of the hundreds of letters of
complaint on the subject of chickens, when one of
the owners interrupted:

“I don’t think it’s fair to take up our time with
letters of complaint, because we already know
what’s in them. We want to find out what’s the
best the Department of Health can do for chicken
raisers.”

A member of a delegation from Sheepshead Bay said
that the proposed seventy-five-foot limit would
entirely wipe out chicken raising in his section,
and he believed it would have the same effect in
other suburban districts. He said:

“I have a plot 100 by 100 feet, and my house
is constructed so that it would be impossible
for me to keep chickens in accordance with the
seventy-five-foot limit. The average suburbanite
lives on a plot 50 by 100 feet.”

The suggestion that the new limit would practically
eliminate the chicken industry from this city,
brought forth a chorus of groans not unlike that
of Sing Sing when a convict is led from the death
house to the electric chair.

Dr. Emerson was the target for a score of different
questions from every part of the room, and, as the
best way out of the difficulty, he asked all who
had killed chickens on their plots to raise their
hands.

“Don’t you do it; you’ll be fined,” was the warning
shouted by one of the chicken owners, and this was
the signal for another series of groans.

It took the Deputy Health Commissioner some little
time to restore order and to explain to the men
and women that no police officers were present
to start proceedings against offenders of the
anti-chicken-slaughtering regulations.

One of the chicken raisers pointed out that the
law was absurd in that it said that a chicken coop
could not be kept within seventy-five feet of a
factory.

“Is a chicken going to harm a factory?” he asked.

Dr. Emerson then tried to tell the complaining
chicken owners that milk-bottling works, on
the sanitation of which depended the lives of
thousands of babies, were among the “factories”
protected by the regulation. He also said that
there was no intent in the seventy-five-foot limit
to discriminate against chicken owners any more
than there was to discriminate against saloons,
which are required to be 200 feet removed from the
nearest church or school. Here he was interrupted:

“You see a lot of drunken men coming out of
saloons, but you never see a drunken chicken coming
out of a chicken coop.”

When Dr. Emerson asserted that 150,000 chickens
were slaughtered in New York City every year in
violation of the law regulating slaughter houses,
several men and women jumped to their feet. All at
once the men protested:

“But we slaughter them in a more sanitary way than
the licensed slaughter houses.”

When this period of excitement had somewhat
subsided, a little woman arose quietly and, on the
ground that she kept two chickens for their eggs,
protested against further reference to the killing
of fowls as “slaughter.”

J. Howland Leavitt, Superintendent of Highways
of Queens, endeavored to calm the chicken owners
by assuring them that it must be the idea of the
Department of Health to improve bad conditions
without being too strict with those persons who
complied with the health regulations.

“For instance,” said Supt. Leavitt, “I keep
chickens within sixty-five feet of a school house.
They do not disturb any of my neighbors, and there
has never been any complaint about them, to my
knowledge.”

“Have you ever received a permit to keep those
chickens?” asked Dr. Emerson.

“No,” replied Mr. Leavitt, and the chicken owners
were forced to laugh--for the first time.

On behalf of citizens of Queens and Richmond
Boroughs in their districts, Aldermen Burden of
Flushing and O’Rourke of Richmond made certain
objections to the proposed ordinance. Alderman
Burden said his constituents were satisfied with
the present law, and only asked for adequate
inspection. Alderman O’Rourke said it would be more
in keeping with the Mayor’s policy to apply home
rule to chickens and leave each Assistant Sanitary
Superintendent with jurisdiction in his borough.

The fears of the chicken raisers were somewhat
allayed when Commissioner Emerson read a letter
from one of their number suggesting a few
modifications to the proposed ordinance. He took a
vote on the suggestions and the majority indorsed
them.

Before the meeting was closed the chicken owners
voted their thanks to Dr. Emerson for his patience
in hearing their complaints.

* * * * *

HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE

_Chicago Herald_

Are women less brave than men in time of danger?

J. C. McDonnell, chief of the fire prevention
bureau, precipitated the second chapter in the
controversy yesterday when he appeared before
the judiciary committee of the city council and
reiterated his contention that public safety
demanded the substitution of men for women ushers
in Chicago theaters.

“Women ushers are not as brave as men when danger
comes,” he argued.

“Experience has proved that statement purely
theoretical and absolutely untrue,” responded the
managers of playhouses which employ girl ushers.

“Women ushers are all right to hand out programs
and show patrons to seats, but that is all,” the
fire prevention chief remarked.

And thereby Armageddon was set down in the midst of
the theatrical world.

The first strategic move of the opposing
forces--the girl ushers of Chicago-consisted in the
organization of an effective fighting machine.

“The Girl Ushers’ Anti-McDonnell League” it is
called--and the name conceals little of the
organization’s plans of procedure.

“Our work is to us what other kinds of work are to
other girls--our means of earning a livelihood,”
said Miss Marie Donlan of the Princess Theater,
chairman of the league. “To the assistant fire
chief the change from women ushers to men would
mean only the vindication of an idea. To us it
would mean the loss of our positions.”

The campaign contemplated by the league has no
place in it for consideration of the feelings of
the fire prevention head.

“We shall ignore him with pleasure,” volunteered
Miss Blanche Lamb, head usher of the Garrick.

Here is the plan worked out by the members of the
league’s impromptu war council: A petition will
be prepared and presented to Mayor Harrison by
a committee selected from the membership of the
league. The petition will recite actual instances
in which girls have proved their bravery “under
fire.”

New friends sprang to the defense of the young
women at the council committee meeting. They were
Aldermen Coughlin and Dempsey. The former cited the
instance of the Iroquois Theater fire, when “men
ushers failed to prevent terrible loss of life.”
Alderman Dempsey said it would be wrong “to throw
so many girls out of employment.”

Girl ushers active in the new league include the
Misses Eleanor Cline and Gertrude White of the
Princess Theater, the Misses Lucile Perkins and
Blanche Lamb of the Garrick, and the Misses T.
Crowley, D. Dennis and G. Kennedy of Powers’.

The council judiciary committee voted to defer
action until after the managers of the theaters had
been given an opportunity to be heard.

Meanwhile--who are braver, girls or boys?

Theatrical managers say girls.

Assistant Chief McDonnell says boys.

And you--?

* * * * *

STATE LEGISLATURE

_St. Louis Post-Dispatch_

JEFFERSON CITY, Jan. 21--Opposition of Democratic
politicians in St. Louis to a reform of the Justice
of the Peace system in the city developed in the
House yesterday over a bill modeled along the lines
of the Municipal Courts bill, which has three times
been killed through the influence of politicians
who sought to perpetuate the present system in the
minor courts of St. Louis.

William R. Handy, Democratic member from the
Third District in St. Louis, yesterday succeeded
in keeping the Justice of the Peace bill in the
Committee on Municipal Corporations after the House
had voted to request that committee to return the
bill that it might be referred to the Committee on
Justices of the Peace, to which it properly belongs.

Handy is a member of the Municipal Corporations
Committee, and with the bill in that committee, it
is always under his eye, and he is in a position to
have a voice in determining whether it shall ever
be reported. Through many sessions Handy has fought
to kill the municipal courts bill.

The Justices of the Peace bill was introduced by
John C. Harrison of St. Louis. Harrison is a lawyer
and a former Justice of the Peace.

His bill provides that Justices of the Peace shall
be elected at large in St. Louis and that each
shall have jurisdiction throughout the city. It
places each Justice on a salary of $3000 a year and
provides for a reduction in the number of Justices
from 11 to 7. Each Justice, the bill provides, must
be a licensed attorney.

One clerk is provided for, to be elected by the
Justices. There are to be such deputy clerks as
are required. One Constable is provided for in the
bill, his salary to be $2500 a year. Deputy clerks
and Constables shall be paid $1800 a year each. In
addition to his salary, the Constable is allowed
2½ per cent of all amounts collected by him on
execution.

The bill does not require that all the justice
courts shall be in one building, but provides that
the Board of Aldermen shall provide suitable rooms
and offices, which shall be centrally located.

The bill is opposed by ward politicians, as was
the Municipal Courts bill in previous sessions,
for the reason that it would abolish many jobs
of Constables and would break up the political
organizations in the Justice of the Peace districts
in St. Louis.

Democrats are opposing it on the additional ground
that under the present system the Democrats are
able to elect some Justices and Constables, and
they fear that, if such officers were elected at
large, the Republicans would win all the jobs.

The controlling motive of the opposition, however,
is the danger of breaking up the organizations
through which political bosses are able to reward
faithful henchmen or get jobs for themselves.

The requirement that a Justice must be a practicing
attorney would end the present system, practiced
in many of the districts in St. Louis, of ward
politicians having themselves elected Justices of
the Peace.

Harrison’s bill was introduced a week ago. It
was referred by Speaker Ross to the Municipal
Corporations Committee, of which Handy is a member.
Yesterday Harrison requested that it be taken
from that committee and sent to the Committee on
Justices of the Peace, of which he is a member.

Handy objected. He said that he was opposed to
having the bill in Harrison’s committee. Speaker
Ross said that it was customary to refer a bill to
any committee the member introducing it desired,
but Representative James J. Blain made the point
that Ross had no power to take the bill out of the
Municipal Corporations Committee.

Harrison then offered a motion that the committee
be instructed to return the bill to the House.
Blain objected to the form of the motion. He
said that the committee should be requested, not
instructed. Harrison changed his motion.

The Municipal Corporations Committee met yesterday
afternoon. Handy was present. The committee voted
to refuse the request of the House and to retain
possession of the bill. The only Democrats on
the committee voting to return the bill were
Representatives White of Cole County and O’Brien of
Wayne County.

Harrison said this morning that he would renew his
motion and that he would ask that the House order
the Municipal Corporations Committee to return the
bill.

* * * * *

NOTE--_The second of the next two stories
follows up the news of the introduction of an
ordinance given in the first story._

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

(1)

_Philadelphia Ledger_

(Condensed)

Authority for the immediate erection of a two-track
elevated railway from Front and Arch streets
to Rhawn street, Holmesburg, is granted in an
ordinance introduced in Common Council yesterday by
Peter E. Costello, of the 45th Ward.

Asserting that he had introduced the bill upon his
own volition, Mr. Costello said that he did not
even know whether it embraced the recommendations
made by Director of City Transit Taylor for such
a road. The people in the northeast want it, he
said, and are certain that it will be a paying
proposition. Republican Organization leaders are
understood to be behind the measure. The bill
relegates Director Taylor to second place in
approval of the plans for the project. It provides
that work shall be started within six months after
the plans have been approved by the “Departments of
Public Works and of City Transit.”

Attention was called to the fact that the Costello
ordinance, by clearing the way for the Philadelphia
Rapid Transit to accept a Northeast “L” proposition
by itself, might seriously hamper the projects of
Director Taylor by eliminating one of the main
features in the Taylor plans, which contemplate
the new high-speed system as a unit. The deep
significance of the ordinance, councilmanic
observers said, lay in this fact.

In accordance with the agreement between the city
and the Rapid Transit Company, the latter has first
refusal of the franchise. If within 90 days after
passage of the ordinance that company does not
indicate acceptance or rejection, the Mayor shall,
by public advertisement, request tenders for the
construction of the elevated and report the same
to Councils, “to the end that the said new company
or the city of Philadelphia may proceed with the
construction of the same.”

The company submitting the successful tender is
given six months within which to present complete
plans for approval to the Departments of Public
Works and of City Transit. Within six months after
approval of such plans actual work of construction
must be started.

In consideration of the franchise the company is
to pay to the city 10 per cent. of its net profits
in cash before any dividends are paid. The rate of
fare is not to exceed 5 cents for a continuous ride.

The road throughout is to have an overhead
clearance of 14 feet above street grades. From
Front and Arch streets to Frankford, the Costello
route is declared to be the same as that laid down
by Director Taylor.

As provided in the ordinance, the route of the
road is to be from Front and Arch streets, along
Front street to Kensington avenue, along Kensington
avenue to Frankford avenue, along Frankford avenue
to Rhawn street.

Stations are to be established at Front and Arch
streets, at Noble street, Girard avenue and Berks
street; along Kensington avenue between Somerset
and Cambria streets, between Allegheny avenue and
Westmoreland street and at or near Tioga and Adams
streets; along Frankford avenue at Unity, Arrott,
Bridge, Comly, Tyson and Rhawn streets.

The road is to be operated by electricity or any
power other than steam. The ordinance was referred
to the Committee on Street Railways, of which
Charles Seger is chairman and Mr. Costello a member.

The announcement that an ordinance had been
introduced for the construction of the Frankford
elevated was a complete surprise to Director
of Transit Taylor. He so told the audience he
addressed last night at a mass-meeting in Tioga. He
refused to discuss the matter at any length.

“After I carefully study that ordinance,” he said,
“and learn more about it, I will make a public
statement. That will be tomorrow afternoon.”

A resolution introduced by Select Councilman Harry
J. Trainer, to grant permission for the use of the
south side of Pier 16, South, for loading supplies
by the American Commission for Relief in Belgium,
was passed.

An ordinance for a “curb market” on Marshall
street, between Brown and Parrish streets, also was
passed.

A resolution providing for the extension of the
Greenmount Cemetery, which recently passed Common
Council, was objected to by William R. Rieber and,
on motion of Louis Hutt, of the 29th Ward, was laid
on the table.

A resolution was passed providing for the extension
of Fairmount Park by the addition of a plot of
ground at Rittenhouse street and Wissahickon avenue.

Resolutions were introduced providing for the
appropriation of $26,000 for a bridge on Sherwood
avenue over the east branch of Indian Run; for
the opening of Beulah street from Shunk street to
Oregon avenue, and Charles street from Bridge to
Harrison streets; for an appropriation of $6500 for
the improvement of Connell Park; for the opening
of a playground and recreation centre between
Frankford and Erie avenues, Venango street and
the Pennsylvania railroad; and for $12,000 for the
purchase of a Delaware wharf property on the south
side of Pine street.

A communication was received from the East
Germantown Improvement Association, calling
attention to the dangerous condition existing
along York road by reason of the absence of
properly paved sidewalks, and urging better police
protection. A letter also was received from Judge
Barratt, urging that the Sons of the Revolution be
permitted to erect a bronze tablet to the memory of
John Nixon in Independence Square.

A plea also was received from the Mutual Beneficial
and Protective Association of the Bureau of Water,
requesting a 15 per cent. increase in salaries for
employes now getting $1400 a year or less.

Select Councilman George T. Conrade, of the 5th
Ward, introduced a resolution granting the use of
Washington Square for the proposed “mongrel” or
“yellow dog” show, to be held on December 19.

(2)

_Philadelphia Ledger_

(Abridged)

Opposition to Councilman Peter E. Costello’s
ordinance proposing the early construction of
an elevated railroad to Frankford, with the
Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company receiving first
preference as a building and operating company,
was sounded yesterday by prominent councilmanic
leaders, Republican Organization colleagues of Mr.
Costello.

In a joint statement setting forth that they had no
knowledge of the Costello ordinance previous to its
introduction last Thursday, Charles Seger, chairman
of Councils’ Joint Committee on Street Railways,
and John P. Connelly, chairman of Councils’ Finance
Committee, declared themselves opposed to any
ordinance which does not embrace transit facilities
“on a broad basis” for the entire city.

At the same time Director of City Transit A.
Merritt Taylor, after an analysis of the Costello
bill, issued a statement declaring that the
passage of such an ordinance would be “an
unthinkable betrayal of a public trust,” in that it
would serve to defeat the plan of the department
to connect every important section of the city
with every other important section by high-speed
lines for a single 5-cent fare. To hand over to
any corporation at this juncture the Frankford
“L,” said Director Taylor, would be to “give away
the most effective lever which the people have to
secure adequate rapid transit for Philadelphia.”

Protest against the Costello plan was forthcoming
from many sections of the city in letters, in
telephone messages and in visits to Director Taylor
from delegations of citizens. The Philadelphia Navy
Yard led the way by sending a delegation, headed
by G. H. Williams, chairman of the League Island
Improvement Association, who declared against a
“one-legged proposition of any kind” and in favor
of transit development for all Philadelphia.
This delegation pointed out that Costello’s bill
contained no provision for transfers from the
Frankford “L” and Market street “L” to Navy Yard
lines, making necessary two 5-cent fares rather
than the single 5-cent fare proposed under the
Taylor plan.

Adherents of the Taylor plan pointed out that the
Costello ordinance provided for extension of the
Frankford elevated from Bridge street, Frankford,
the northern terminal of the Taylor elevated,
to Rhawn street, in Holmesburg. This, it was
pointed out, was a projection three miles long
through an undeveloped territory, which, however,
contains choice building lots now held by realty
corporations and private owners.

In the face of all the protest, Councilman Costello
announced that Frankford, with one-third of the
entire population of the city, was entitled to
first consideration in transit development, and
that it had been trying to get better facilities
for 25 years. He said he was not considering the
needs of Darby, Logan or any other section of the
city. He did not care whether the Rapid Transit
Company or an independent concern built and
operated the line. Further, he had consulted no
one in drafting his ordinance.

* * * * *

MEDICAL CONVENTION

_New York Times_

The man isn’t born who can tell a lie under the
close observation of physiological experts without
an increase in the pressure of the blood, according
to a statement made by Dr. Louisa Burns of the A.
T. Still Research Institute of Chicago, at the
final meeting of the sixteenth Annual Convention
of the New York Osteopathic Society, yesterday
afternoon, at the Park Avenue Hotel, Park Avenue
and Thirty-third Street. Dr. Burns has drawn her
conclusions from a long series of experiments,
conducted in her laboratory.

It was pointed out to the three hundred osteopaths
by Dr. Burns that any habitual liar could tell an
untruth without betraying the slightest sign of
deceit in the expression of his face or in the
movement of his body. But the action of the pulse,
she said, was far beyond the control even of the
best liar. She explained that this was so because
the pulse or pressure of the blood was influenced
chiefly by the change of emotions, and the most
finished liars, she observed, had sometimes the
strongest emotions.

“The action of the blood pressure is an indicator
to the person who is accustomed to work with it. By
watching it you are able to get the true history
of a case, even in spite of the reticence of the
patient, in the same way in which you are able to
find a hidden object in the game of hide and seek,
when your search is guided toward that hidden thing
by the warning, ‘You’re getting hot,’ and away from
it by the counter warning, ‘You’re getting cold.’

“When a patient comes to my office I always find it
is better to work with him as he lies on a table.
In order to avoid distracting his attention, it is
better to sit quietly beside him rather than stand
over him. He is engaged in a conversation at first
simply about the nature of his complaint. Meanwhile
I have found his pulse, and as the conversation
progresses, the patient soon forgets that his pulse
is the one thing under observation. If the patient
is asked about a certain thing which may have been
true of his case, he will confirm your guess by the
action of his pulse, even though he may evade your
question. If he is trying to keep from disclosing
this fact to you, the pressure of his blood will
inevitably be increased.”

Dr. Burns said that she was certain she could
take a witness in a criminal case and find out
absolutely to her own satisfaction whether he
was telling the truth or lying. However, she
would be unwilling to give testimony this way
for conviction. Asked if a man of low mentality
responded differently in the pressure of his blood
from a man of higher mentality, Dr. Burns explained
that he did, yet the truth and the lie were as
easily distinguishable in one as in the other.

The management of pneumonia, scarlet fever, and
typhoid fever with technique was discussed by E.
C. Link, D. O., Stamford, Conn.; G. V. Webster, D.
O., Carthage; J. A. De Tienne, D. O., Brooklyn,
and J. E. Foster, D. O., Butler, Penn. “Osteopathy
and Acute Conditions,” was the subject of a paper
by Dr. George M. Laughlin, M. S. D., D. O., of the
American School of Osteopathy.

These were elected officers of the society: W.
A. Merkley, D. O., Brooklyn, President; Louisa
Dieckmann, D. O., Buffalo, Vice President; C. M.
Bancroft, D. O., Canandaigua, Secretary, and Cecil
Rogers, D. O., New York, Treasurer.

* * * * *

MEETING OF SAFETY COUNCIL

_Chicago Herald_

There is one railroad company in the United States
that has solved the difficulty presented by boys
who delight in “flipping” cars and “milling”
locomotive turntables at considerable risk to life
and limbs.

The remedy? Bribery, nothing less. Nicely embossed
“Safety First” buttons, or, as a last and
never failing resort, a swimming pool near the
round-house.

This revelation of latest railroad safety methods
was made yesterday at the closing session of the
third annual congress of the national council for
industrial safety at the Hotel LaSalle, by W. B.
Spaulding of St. Louis, chairman of the central
safety committee of the Frisco System.

“Every railroad has trouble with boys who ‘hop’ and
‘flip’ trains and play with the turntables,” said
he. “I am glad to be able to report that the Frisco
road has solved the problem with success, so far as
we are concerned. We awarded ‘Safety’ buttons to
those who swore off on these juvenile pastimes, and
when that failed, we installed swimming pools near
the roundhouses, under railroad supervision.

“The swimming pool never has failed to work.
All that is necessary to steer a boy away from
dangerous pastimes is to provide a sane outlet for
his excess energy.”

The 500 members of the council, representing more
than 1,000,000 workingmen throughout the United
States and covering almost every line of industrial
endeavor, unanimously adopted resolutions against
the use of alcohol, in part as follows:

“It is recognized that the use of alcoholic
stimulants is productive of most industrial
accidents and works against the safety and
efficiency of workmen.

“Therefore, be it resolved, That it is the sense of
this congress that the members pledge themselves to
the elimination of the use of alcoholic stimulants
among the employes of their plants and factories.”

M. A. Dow, general safety agent of the New York
Central lines, thought “the public must be educated
to believe that a railroad’s safety rules are for
their benefit, rather than to save the company
damage suits.” As evidence of the progress of the
“safety first” propaganda, he cited figures of
his company showing that for the year ending June
30, 1914, there had been 109 fewer deaths from
accidents and 132 fewer injuries.

The inculcation of accident prevention should
start in the kindergarten and continue through
high school and college, in the opinion of Martin
J. Insull, vice president of the Middle West
Utilities Company, Chicago.

“The public’s extravagant disregard for the value
of its safety is shown during the automobile
season, when our papers constantly report
terrible accidents invariably caused by suicidal
carelessness,” said he.

Melville W. Mix, president of the Dodge
Manufacturing Company, Mishawaka, Ind., and head
of the manufacturers’ bureau of that state, placed
the blame for 75 per cent of factory accidents on
the disinterested and indifferent attitude of the
employer toward his employe.

“Safety first is not a philanthropic movement on
the part of employer to employe,” said he. “Safety
first is a hard practicality of business extension.
That seems a hard statement, but it is not without
its qualifications, as there is a blood-and-soul
side of every phase of business life.

“We see wealthy magnates lay fabulous sums at the
disposal of a world peace tribunal, and we see in
what short space of time the martial strength of a
continent may apparently forget the life-conserving
principles to which they have subscribed. Do we
see any such enthusiasm in the cause of commercial
or industrial safety? Is the blood spilled at
the lathe, the forge, the throttle or the grade
crossing less red, less valuable than that shed on
fields of battle?”

* * * * *

RAILWAY COMMISSIONS’ CONVENTION

_Madison_ [_Wis._] _Democrat_

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17.--“More deaths are caused by
improper ventilation of train coaches and waiting
rooms than by train accidents.”

The committee on railway service and railway
accommodations so reported to the annual convention
of the national association of railway commissions
today.

“The noxious gases that fill coaches, especially
sleeping cars, in connection with the peculiar
character of dust therein, are most conducive
to germ breeding where proper ventilation is
lacking,” the committee added.

In regard to the lighting of railway coaches, the
committee said that this problem has been fairly
satisfactorily solved on the trunk lines, but that
on many branch lines the dingy, dirty oil lamp is
still in evidence. A vigorous campaign against this
condition is recommended.

Carelessness in providing drinking water at
stations and on trains is noted, and it is
recommended that railroad commissions abolish the
stationary water cooler and prescribe a cooler with
a portable container. Uniform methods of cleansing
such containers, sanitary methods of handling ice,
and sanitary drinking cups, to be provided free of
charge for the public are also recommended and the
placing of ice in the receptacle is deprecated.

The failure of suburban trains to arrive and depart
on time is the cause of wide complaint, says the
committee. Another source of complaint is the lack
of adequate service on Sundays. The committee
believes that at least one train should operate in
each direction as a minimum Sunday service.

The committee recommends the elimination of the
practice of paying freight bills carrying manifest
over charges. Delays in handling and settling
claims are also complained of, and the committee
concludes that the best means of minimizing such
delays is to require the railroads to pay interest
on the true claim amount from the date the amount
of the claim went into their hands.

On the question of substitution of steel for
wooden cars, the committee recommends that the
interstate commerce commission be given full power
to prescribe the character of equipment to be used
in interstate commerce.

* * * * *

CLUB VOTES TO DISBAND

_Ohio State Journal_

The Social Workers’ Club is dead.

The end came peacefully at 10:10 last evening,
after a protracted period of wasting away. The
immediate friends of the deceased were present at
the last.

While a divergency of opinion existed among those
called in to treat the patient, a majority seemed
to feel that the demise was due to malnutrition
and faulty assimilation. It was felt that the
Social Workers’ Club had failed to take its own
medicine--it was not social.

At a consultation held last evening at the Y. M. C.
A. 30 persons were present. They had appeared out
of a list of 78 who had been advised that the end
was near. The main question was whether digitalis
and oxygen should be administered, or whether
nature should be allowed to take its apparent
course, unhindered. On a roll call six voted to let
it die. Four voted for resuscitation. The remaining
20 did not care enough to vote, or were animated by
high humanitarian motives which forbade holding out
hope to a doomed patient.

The Social Workers’ Club was born about five years
ago. It was a healthy infant at first, with strong
pulse and regular respiration, and took nourishment
regularly once a month. Social experts from all
over the country came and told it how to get along.
It passed through its second summer and teething
period without serious disorder. The third year it
showed a difficulty in digesting all that it heard.
Under treatment this disorder did not disappear,
but seemed rather to augment. A series of special
dinners drained its vitality to the lowest ebb.

One of the reasons advanced for this condition
last night was that the family income was not
sufficient to support the child as it required, two
other children, the Council of Churches and the
Philanthropic Council, having divided the natural
resources.

Miss Blanche Green prescribed a treatment of play,
but it did not meet with general approval. She said
it wasn’t Gowdy that brought people down town last
night, but just a desire to play. She confessed
to an occasional desire for a game of mumbly-peg.
“Social workers, who are trying to reform the
world, have forgotten how to be social,” she said.

Rev. H. W. March was inclined to the belief that
the treatment had been regular and academic
throughout. He thought that if the patient had
to die, no criticism could lie against those who
attended in its last hours. Prof. H. R. Horton was
inclined to adopt the Green diagnosis, but thought
a return to the treatment administered during the
first two years might prolong life.

The other children, the Council of Churches and the
Philanthropic Council, survive, and kind-hearted
neighbors will look after them until they adjust
themselves to the new condition of things.

* * * * *

OLD CLOTHES MEN’S MEETING

_New York Sun_

Around the corner from the weather-beaten Church
of the Sea and Land in Henry street yesterday
afternoon there was a buzzing of voices which grew
in time to a loud and angry chorus and drew all the
children of the quarter. The children thought there
was a fight, but the policeman who was passing the
time of day with a café keeper whose name ended in
“opoulos,” knew better, grinned and went on about
his business.

The old clothes dealers, whose profit lies in
shambling through the better residence streets in
the early morning and shattering the quiet with
their singsong appeals for trade, were meeting to
denounce Gen. Bingham, Commissioner of Police.
Since last Monday, when the police muffled the
strident voices of the “cash-for-clo’” men as a
consequence of his belief that there was entirely
too much unnecessary noise in this town, the
dealers have accumulated bitterness in their
insides.

Therefore yesterday afternoon in the hall at 49
Henry street they howled their woes against the
walls and let out pent up sounds. Principally, it
appeared, their wrath was directed against the
Police Commissioner. He was a tyrant. He was a
czar. He was several distinct and wholly different
kinds of things which could only be expressed
in Yiddish. English was quite unequal to their
necessities. But the aristocrats of their trade
who gabble at the corner of Bayard and Elizabeth
streets came in for full scorn. Why were these
allowed to buy and sell with appropriate outcries
and calls when the itinerant pedlers were muzzled
by the law?

At Bayard and Elizabeth streets is the great old
clothes exchange of New York city--of the whole
country, for that matter--where any day in the week
you will find in the open street several hundred
old and bearded men, with green frock coats that
sweep to their knees, dealing in cast off garments
and shoes. The Jewish women of the East Side,
thrifty souls, go there to trade cloth, ironware,
dishes, ribbons, anything they can spare, for hats
or coats or trousers or shoes that their men might
wear. Old clothes brokers from the South--as far
south as Atlanta--haggle with the dealers of the
East Side, and take back to their homes great packs
of clothes bought cheap in money, dear in words.

It was the complaint of the Old Clothes Dealers’
Protective Association, the itinerant pedlers,
that the police mandate against noise has not been
applied to the market place at Bayard and Elizabeth
streets.

The voice of Ikey Cohen, veteran hawker,
rumbled toward old Jacob Jahr, president of the
association, who sat high on the rostrum, high hat
over his ears, pulling at his gray streaked beard,
and lost itself in the recesses behind a great
seven branched candlestick.

“No more I must gif my calls,” he complained with
outspread hands. “If so much as I gry, ‘Gaaaa-ssh!
Ol’ Clo’s. Gaaaa-ssh!’ a bolisman he koms from
Bingham and grabs my arm by him and he says, ‘Gut
id owid! If you make a holler you’ll be peenched!’”
[Applause.]

And all around the long room, a place of prayer and
meditation on the Jewish Sabbath, the men nodded
their heads solemnly grunting in their beards,
saying in Yiddish:

“Truly, that is the way we have found it. How is
a citizen to prosper in these days, I ask you, my
friend?”

Old Louis Stein, pedler for twenty-five years, and
reputed to be rich, orated in English after his own
fashion.

“Der city it owes us a liffing? Say you so? Vell,
then. How vill beoples know vat we vant unless ve
make cries? Uddervise, ve might as well chump in
der river! Ledt us write to Bresident Roosevelt! He
vill tell Mister Bingham [very scornfully was this
said] where to make a gedt off!” [More applause and
a great stamping on the floor.]

Along toward evening, when the meeting of the
400 old clothes pedlers had run for three hours,
and nearly everybody had had a say, most of
them comparing New York to St. Petersburg, the
advantage lying entirely with the latter capital,
they decided to send a delegation to Commissioner
Bingham to-day to beg that they be permitted once
more to seek trade with their tongues. They agreed
among themselves to call very softly, only twice
or three times in any street, if the General would
permit them to open their mouths. Also, they intend
to ask that the permanent exchange at Bayard and
Elizabeth streets be muffled if they are to be kept
quiet.

The House and Wagon Pedlers’ Association, which
takes in all the fruit and vegetable venders, met
last night at 304 East 101st street and decided to
send a committee of their own to the Commissioner.
They, as well as the old clothes merchants, said
that business has fallen off at least 50 per cent
since the anti-noise order was put into effect.

* * * * *

FRIENDS’ ANNUAL MEETING

_New York Evening Post_

“If it does not seem like hurrying our business,”
said the clerk of the meeting, “we will now hear
read the letter from the Philadelphia Meeting.” And
the soft stillness of the Yearly Meeting in the
old Friends’ Meeting House on Fifteenth Street,
softened into even greater stillness and quiet, to
listen. The voice of the clerk, his grave, slow
courtesy, and his wish for no unseemly haste, were
in perfect blending with the old, buff room lighted
only through the great, square-paned windows below
and above the gallery, through which the green of
the old trees in the yard could be seen, in perfect
harmony with the gentle, kindly, gracious spirit of
the people gathered there, for communion with one
another.

“Let us miss no opportunity of expressing the love
we feel one for another, one for another,” said one
of the eight women who sat on the facing seats, an
old lady with silvery hair under her black bonnet.
The words, “one for another” might have been the
text of the morning, not alone of the woman who
first spoke them, but of all the words which were
said.

Another woman spoke. She was an English woman
who, with her husband, represented the London
Meeting. “Why do we not have a crusade for love?”
she asked. “War goes on, and we do nothing about
it. If this love which we have in our hearts could
be irradiated about the world, war could not be
possible. Thoughts of love, if sent out by us
steadily and consistently, must reach to the ends
of the earth, as the ripples which a stone makes in
a pool.”

But the war was little touched upon. That, with
almost all of the more important business of the
meeting, will be taken up in the later meetings
this afternoon, tonight, Wednesday afternoon, and
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings. This
morning was held apart almost entirely for the text
“One for another.”

It could almost have been a country meeting. The
old, square, red-brick building on 15th Street
hears little of the noise of the city. This
morning there was little sound but the stirring
of raindrops on the panes. And the unhurried,
quiet time was given up to greetings and welcomes,
messages to those who could not come, the reading
of messages from Friends in other places, and slow
emphasis on the kindly details of their fellowship
one for another.

The meeting was opened when the eight women and
the five men had taken their places on the facing
seats and exchanged their silent handclasps, with
which also the meeting closes. They were, truly,
the elders of this house, the ones who can remember
farthest back into the times when all the women,
and not just three or four, wore close Quaker
bonnets. A tiny woman in gray rose twice from her
facing place to confirm what had been said. Some
one had greeted the members of the London Meeting
and recalled her own warm welcome at that meeting
many years ago. The little old woman rose swiftly,
and, looking down at the English people, said, with
infinite dignity and sweetness in her voice, “We
are very glad to have these Friends with us. I also
remember the very cordial welcome I received from
the London Meeting.” The very slow, quiet words had
the sound of deep ceremony, of the conferring of
great and unforgettable honor upon these visitors
from another country.

There was a prayer for strength “to partake of Thy
Spirit,” a poem read which said, “Has the Gospel of
Peace then failed us, That such a thing can be?”
and many suggestions concerning appreciations,
sympathies, letters, to be sent. Resolutions,
called minutes, were gently put, and a soft voice
would come from somewhere, saying, “I should
approve that,” followed by a chorus of “So should
I.”

In the Gymnasium are the old books, the record of
the things which the oldest Friends remember, and
of things which happened so far back in the years
that May was spoken of as Third Month instead of
Fifth. This was in the oldest book of them all,
unbound until recently, with yellowed, stained,
finely written pages, the “Paper of Advice” sent by
George Fox to the Quakers of Long Island. It was
brought there by John Burnyeat on the twenty-ninth
day of the then third month, 1671. Records of all
births, deaths, marriages, removals, are here
since 1672, long before other denominations or
governments began to keep such close watch of
statistics. For birthright membership is the very
basis of the old faith, the heritage which comes
down from father to son through the centuries
and which keeps the bonds so close that bind the
families and the friends of Friends, one to another.

Out in the meeting-room, with the sight of the
leaves and a red brick wall outside the high
windows, there is little to make one know that the
old yellow leaves were written so very long ago,
after all. Perhaps in those old days there were no
white and purple lilacs in the front of the room to
nod and drowse and sweeten through the long hours.
Perhaps then there was not so much true kindliness
as has come with the years of Friendliness. To-day,
when one of the oldest women rises from her place
to speak, an old man says gently, “Elizabeth,
thee need not rise to speak unless thee prefer.”
He might not have done that in the old days, but
surely her answer would have been the same, “Thank
thee, Charles, but I prefer to stand when I speak,”
with just a hint of reproof in her tone.