The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-29

upon to forgive much in his way of doing
it, and we never do good act ourselves
without having to pardon our neighbors
for not approaching it. Even a charity
entertainment of public nature, in which
both ourselves and our neighbors take
part, always involves something which it
requires charity to overlook. l trust it is
not necessary for me to say that make
these statements without reference to any
thing local. They are truths of universal
application, and are not mere matters of
as you like ii.
Far away from our elysium on the other
side of the continent there is city called
Brooklyn, the good sinners whereof are
sorely disturbed because IN supporting
one charity they have been called upon to
practice another. at recent charity en-
tertainment one of their social leaders. a
man of millions, good family and some
probity, posed in a tableau as John Knox,
and shortly thereafter, in the same costume,
appeared on the stage again as the leader
of minuet. The people of Brooklyn re-
gard this performance as strain on their
sense Of propriety, and live in dread of
what Boston may say about it. They feel,
therefore, that they have been uniustly
treated by an entertainment which in adj
dition to taking money from them for
charity has compelled them to exercise
further charity in pardoning what they
saw.
If this Brooklyn racket, which has made
noise enough to be heard on this side
of the continent, were no more than
row over a matter of propriety we
might dismiss it as unworthy of further
consideration on day when we have
leisure to walk abroad and recreate our
selves without regard to propriety-as it is
understood in Brooklyn. However, it in
wolves deeper problem, one not unworthy
a meditation in the park or discussion in
the parlor, inasmuch as it touches the
fundamental philosophy of life. 1t is con-
coded that to pose as John Knox and then
lead a minuet is unreasonable in itself and
that to ask pay for seeing it is unjust; but
even on this concession 1T by no means
follows that after such a performance the
spectator should raise his foot to protest
or lift up his voice to kick. The truth is
this world is not based upon reason and
justice, but upon love and charity, and he
who goes too far in seeking the first is
liable to get off his base and lose the other.
No man, however ingenious he may be,
can give reason for anything that exists,
either in the natural or artificial order of
things, nor can he prove even to his own
satisfaction that there is justice anywhere.
On the other hand love and charity are
visible in everything, from the feast we
spread for friend to the hymnbooks we
send to the heather. When a man of
many resources steals $40,000,000 in order
to be philanthropist, reason and justice
demand that he should be treated as any
other thief, but charity reminds us that
under similar circum stances we might
have appropriated $39,0O0,O00 ourselves,
ana we pardon the extra million on the
ground that we could not expect other
people to be as honest as we are. By an
equal charity we are led to pardon the
tramp and share with him any portion of
our SD distance that we may have SO closely
guarded that he could not help himself to
it. Thus we hold the tramp and the mil
lionaire in an equal benevolence and main
tain society on that basis.
We never look anywhere without seeing
W,
and we never listen TO any one without
hearing stories of the absence of reason
and justice. Away over in London, for
example, a poet has lifted up his voice
complaining of the injustice and unreason-
ableness of law. Why, he asks, should
critics be allowed larger freedom in deal
ing with poets tn an with other people. If
critic should write an article declaring that
a certain wine-maker sent forth to the
world only thin, dreggy, sour and artificial
stuff, no journal would publish it; and if
it were published, the wine man could get
in the courts large sum in damages. On
the other hand any critic may say poets
verses are thin, weak and stolen; and not
only will he find plenty of publishers. but
the poet has no recourse. 1t is not essen
tial. continues the poet. that people should
read poetry, nor is thin poetry any great
wrong to man, therefore there is no need
of a rigid criticism; but it is essential that
wine should be good, and there ought to
be the fullest freedom in criticizing it.
The law as it stands is an abomination.
1t would be new earth, and possibly
new heaven, if we could go about criticiz-
ing merchants as freely as we criticize
poets; if we could say in print of tailor
that his coats do not fit just as freely as we
can say of writer that his stories do not
suit; but it is doubtful if we would profit
by the change. There is nothing to be
gained in condemning the goods of mer-
chant, but there is an opportunity to win
huge reputation as a wit, satirist and
master of language by finding fault with
the works of small poets. In the case of
wine merchant the problem is particularly
clear. We cannot live without wine, at
least we cannot live wisely or well, there
fore we love the wine-maker, and with
him everything goes; but for the poet we
have only charity, and he must behave
himself.
The clamor for reason and justice goes
on necessarily in the world as a continual
proof that there is no reason in it nor any
sense of justice. The very people who
clamor for these things do not wish them.
No man would like to be judged by that
rule or have either his dinner or his
dessert melted out to him by that measure.
No rational creature will consent to give
0p do nd 60