The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1892-05-08
HENRIETTE AGAIN.
She Defends Herself and Answers BY Civ
ing List Of the Society Ladies Of
Wichita and the Number Of
Their Entertainments.

shall not recriminate. In the face OF
all my allowances and provisions and
apologies expressing the irnpossibility Of
naming everybody, half dozen frisky
CORES ondents, | see, call loudly for
justice because their beloved names were
omitted shall not elucidate as could,
for l explained in giving the different
cliques that the lists were at best crude
and rudimentarv. Neither did attempt
to say who was in society or who was not
But along comes a band of indignant
sylphs, who overwhelm me with a fusil-
ade OF ironical fippaucies and sarcastic
differences and charge me with setting a
-four hundred limit. That was not my
idea at all. However, if these contribu-
tors wish to make that the issue, believe
am equal 70 the occasion.
Who then in Wichita are in society,"
The question is simple enough, so
simple, in truth. that / see no need of
laundering or making blind, unjust de-
cision.
1t can be answered in two ways. In
definitely if you so wish. You can say
everybody who is respectable, compan-
ionao!e and OF a sociable temperament is
in society. This is quite true. Nobody
will deny it.
Or again. you can give the great bulk OF
names of the individuals who comprise So
ciety; give them separately, name for
name.
! This is what l intend to do. I shall
eliminate the masculine sex at the start,
not because they are not an important adj
| junct to society, but for the more import
| hot he
and being of society, without whom it
could not exist aud without whom it
could have had no beginning. l shall deal
exclusively with the feminine sex.
If we are to proceed in this matter, with
analytical prec ision, we must ask ourselves
another question: Who are in society, the
entertainers or the entertained? The i'm
pulse is 10 answer Both" moments
reflection inspires a doubt as to the correct
ness of that reply. A great many people
are entertained who never entertain.
guess every hostess will agree with me in
this. The entertainers are more in society
! than the entertained 1t ould be trifiing
! to question this statement. live dispensed
with the entertainers we should have no
! society. That seems simple enough for
anybody. Please to remember that | am
| speaking of the women, all this while.
! The men, or very few OF them entertain.
! But the men do not keep up society. The
| counting room and the business desk is
their post.
| We have arrived at this point-the
woman who gives the greatest number of
! parties, large and small, is doing most for
society and per necessity is more society
lady than her neighber who does not.
hope that nobody will be such block
head as to imagine that am advocating
or encouraging New York City society in
Wichita We have no woman, l believe,
who live for society alone; go wrapped
in furs to halls of pier glass and glittering
ormolu, and dance in the dreamy maze in
| naked shoulders until morning, every day,
| week in and week out. Our society is
largely composed of ladies who would not
hesitate to gather their sewing up in their
aprons and run out of the back door cross
lots. in the afternoon. for a friendly gossip
with neighbor. This, however, is digres-
sive.
l have here list of the entertainers of
Wichita. l kept the list myself, for the
whole of the year, 1891. Reference to the
columns of the EAGLE and the Mirror has
shown it TO be in the main correct. But,
like many other earthly things. it is not
infallible. There may be some names
omitted, but not many, pledge you.
take the year 1891 because it is a repre-
sentative year. l realize that there may
be hostesses who gave parties in December,
1890 or January, 1892, who are not in my
list. However, believe these exceptions
are few. One year is good as another.
! shall give the names of the unmarried
ladies first. Miss Harriet Johnson. it will
be seen. gave the greatest number of par
ties that year. seven in all:
Harriet Johnson Z, Beatrice Thomas ),
Sara Chapman 4, Matte Fabrique 4, Bees
sic Dagner 3, Maude Pratt 3. Lulu Ana
walt 5, Dora Woods 3, Addie Brook 3,
Misses Rudolf 8, Genevra Jocelyn ?. Mea
Young 2, VirgalIne Lucy ., Mary Caldwell
Q Gertie Lauck 2. Grace McAdams ., leila
Tusch 2, Mamie Mead ?, Mabel Clement .,
Dell Bayuum 2, Lena Richards 2, Pearl
Sknner2
The following gave one party during the
year each: Elsa Walker, Maud Struble,
Rea Woodman, Mary Rutan, Elsie Wood
man, Florence Hartley, Anna Mulvey,
Agnes Lynch, Myrtle DEAN, Sadie York,
Lucy Dubois, I.ottie Newcomb. Kate
Junkermann, Renetta Ross, Gertie
Thomas, Gertie Hays, Helen Fisher, Julia
Wood, Bernice Evans, Miss Wainwright,
Mabel Larimer and Fanny Lewis.
This gives a total of eighty-fve parties
given by our young entertainers in one
year. Iconsider that very good showing
The married peoples parties are greatly
ahead in point of numbers | find that
Mrs ". s. Corbctt gave the greatest num-
Der of partieS-seyen.
Mesdames W. S. Corbett :, J. P. Allen
3, S E. Jocelyn 5, J. D. Houston 5. A H.
Fabrique ), w C. Little 4, J. a. Hollinger
4, c. A Walker 4 J. E Oldham 4.
George whitney i, C. L Davidson
/, l. B. Terrell 4, Kos Harris 3,
AZ W. Levy ). II. B. Cohn 9, J. n. Alley 3.
Harry Lyle 3, T. J. Logan 3, ~. ". john
ston 3, F. B. Smith 8, George l. Pratt 3.
H. 7. Kramer 5. Frank " God 3. u NJ
Mardock 8, H. G. Ruggles g. r. P Muir
dock 8. Ed Vail 3, Lucien Miner 2 J. II.
Black :. VI. c. Campbell 2, L Z Bleckley
.. n. c. Sluss 2. George W. Knorr ..
George L Douglas :, Charles Smyihe .,
I. r Even ,. f NJ. Brooks 2,
0. O. Barnes 9, A w Mccoy 2,
A. ". Biting .. Frank Coen .. George
strong ,. c. Z Owen >. Z. X Moore :.
Frank Wood ?. B. Deffsrbaugh 2. Oscar
Smith . j. o. Davidson 2 Charles Il
Pool :, L u Cox :, Russell Harding .
TIE ladies who gave one party during
the year were Nesdames c. Pintard, c. II
Peckham. l. w Clapp. VIM lines. J. T
Dorsey, " Myers, 3. Il Campbell, z
Oliver. \ W. Oliver. T. II. Lynch. / Z.
C-Sa