The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-07-14
THE GOVEKNOK AND The "NAuoE'
WILLIE"

II tho Rev Thomas y. Potts knows or
anything that makes the particular Nau-
deville performance at Forest Hill PARK
va,ich Cio,-rnor O'Ferrall attended.
disreputable one. then We have nothihs
IN say against his criticism of the Gov
ernor for attending it, but if MT. fot's
means to take the ground that the Gov
ernor of Virginia should not go 10
vaudeville performance, then we are cOh-
strained to enter our most pointed dissent
from his views. The word vaudeville IS
not understood by one person in ten
thousand that applies II TO theatrlcdl
performance. and having a SUSPICIOUS
sort of a sound many very good people
are inclined to think there must be some
things very wicked in any show 10 when
such a suggestive name is given But
while a show by any name whatever may
be a very bad exhibition there is abso-
lutely nothing in a vaudeville show, cor
rectly speaking. that is offensive to eth
er good morals or good taste
The word had its origin thus: Some
four hundred years ago there lived III
Normandy, France. a poet named Ohver
Basselin. who wrote satircal drinking
songs that became very popular In
France. He lived at place called NauX-
de-vire and his songs came TO have the
name attached to them of "les vauX-de-
wire" This in time came to be corrupt
l. /. In, ffna
any exhibition of a character that was
light and frivolous came to be called
"vaudevine" The word did not impart
any idea Of immortality. however. It's
suggestions were of meriment and fun.
Unless. therefore. the Governor is TO be
made a kind of knight of the Sorrow
full Countenances," we see no greater
reason why he should be forbidden to at
tend a vaudeville performance than why
any other citizen should be. OF course, If
a bad show has assumed. the harm
less name Of vaudeville that is anoth-
or matter But IL the show at Forest
Hin is really a vaudeville" show, then
we insist that every citizen may properly
attend 1t and the Governor no less than
the others.
we feel constrained. however. further
to express our disapproVal of such criti-
cisrns as those in which the Rev. Mr..
Potts INDUCED in his Sunday sermon.
The Governor Of Virginia in his official
capacity Is it subject for criticism. as
touching al lis cHi,ial acts but preach
or has no more right 10 criticise Colonel
O'Ferran for attending a theatrical per-
Torrance. and to call his name from the
pulpit. than he has to criticise the private
acts and to call the name OF any other
individual citizen
II the Governor should pursue such an
immoral course In his private life as 10
render him unfit for the high Office which
he fills. it would be proper fer the public
press, and possibly for the pulpit TO CAL
attention TO his misdoings. But no such
charge can be brought against the man
who now occupies the executive chair OF
Vireinia.
lie is n member in good standing OF
the Presbyterian church, and If it was u
sin for him to have attended vaudeville
performance. it was q matter for his own
pastor to deal with. rather than the pas
tor OF another church.
We say this much not especially in vim
dication of Governor O'Ferrall. nor espe-
cally In condemnation of the Rev. Mr.
Potts, but by way OF expressing our UNI
Outstanding of general principle that
the private acts of a public official. unless
grossly immoral. are In no sense proper
subjects for public criticism, and when
such criticisms are made. they seem TO
us 20 be not only in bad FORM but in vio-
laton of the individual rights of citizens
-
A NASHVILLE TRUST"
We observe that the grand jury OF
Nashville Tenn. In pursuance of a re-