The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-07-30
ABOUT APOLOGIZING.
Philosophy of Man Who Holds 1t
Is Futile to Do So.
Boston Transcript.

Boston Transcript.
The friend whom quoted at some length
the other day on life insurance has laid
Newer he Is fni
anything that is absolutely futile it is apol-
ogy. Instead of making the person to whom
oversight or piece of thoughtlessness on ac-
count of which it is given. the apology
simply intensifes his perception of that
oversight and makes him feel all the worse
about it, few days ago / took luncheon
with man who said he was feeling very
badly. He had borrowed, upon point of hon
or, from a dear friend the only copy in ex-
istence of a treasured historic manuscript.
He had promised TO return it straightway.
1t was the old story. servant, In quest
of paper to start a kitchen fire, got hold of
the precious old manuscript and burned il
up. What should my friend do? l advised
him, from some experience in such things.
to avoid making any apology, to say MOTH
ing whatever to his friend about the matter,
and when the subject should finally be
prise concerning it. In this way, the lender
would think it must be that he had not
made clear the necessity of returning the
manuscript or failed to indicate sufficiently
it's value. Perhaps he would come to think
himself that it was of no value. At all
events. he could not get very angry with
man who appeared hardly to realize that he
had committed any offense whatever. The
advice believe was sound.
My attention. he goes on. was first
directed to the futility of apology several
years ago. i was a Northern man in
Southern city, new to Southern conditions
and inexperienced in dealing with the COL
ored brother. One afternoon a Georgian
friend urged me TO go somewhere with him
for several hours. | replied that the one
objection to accepting was the fact that
had asked my colored messenger to meet
me at certain place at / o'clock, and to
wait there until came, in case / should be
late: 1t would be pretty hard to keep him
you replied my friend, how that can be
made all right. When you go around at 4
o'clock, you approach him with the air Of
said, give him the notion that ii is just
his business to wait three hours for you.
and that you compelled It as matter of
giZe to him, you have ruined him as a mes
senger and spoiled him. a citizen. He
will never do anything for you again after
an apology.
"A further acquaintance with the mys-
ferrous ways of the coored brother led me
to believe that there was some small
amount of wisdom in this advice. or at least
that it rested upon some principles of HUI
man nature. l then began to wonder If the
I believe it is. An, apology spells every
body, and Injuries the reputation of the
man making it.. Therefore my rule in life
and then in contrast with my fellow man to
assume that / have done exactly right, and
to effect surprise and indifference in the
ever otherwise. The next time Lord Ches-
terrified writes out his rules of conduct he
should append as one of them, Never apol-
ogize.' DO things meet for apology as sell
dom as possible, but, having done them, do
not apologize for them. That is self-in-
elimination, and it is principle of old Eng
obliged TO testify against himself"
I commend this reasoning to all thinking
persons. / have. myself, apologized a great
many times: but I cannot truly say that
an apology has ever really helped my case
with the person who was offended. OF
course ii patched the matter up, but did
that do any good? 1t is conceivable that
giving an apology may be better than taking
a licking; but may not AS failure to apollo
gize to B for a slight an affront be con-
strued by as proof that A is confident
that he can lick b.. and consequently no
apology is needed and no attempt at a lick
ing likely? These things should be pom
dered carefully.