The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1901-12-20
w. CT. ~. COLUMN
CONDUCTED BY MRS. N. l.. HOBBS.


|
serve it is in quotation marks. l
don't swear. l am a preacher.
did not say it. The editor OF the
Memphis Scimetar said it. Ed
itors use strong language some
tines when they get stirred up.
Even cuss words. This man has
found an "outrage. That il bad
Bad enough. But il is worse. Ii
ia not a common sort of outrage.
Not one of the mild type, not one
of the ordinary, every day kind. 1t
is a very bad kind. There are COM
parisons in outrages. There are
outrages and bad outrages, and
worse, and there may be one worst
outrage. OF course, there can bt
but one OF this kind, since nothing
can be worse than the worst, or even
as bad. Surely. nothing can be a
worse outrage than "damnable
Outrage" Quotation marks up) /.
| don't want to see an outrage that
is worse than a "damnable out
rage" However, it is supposed
that the comparison may be kept
up. There may be "damnable out
RACES" more "damnable outrages"
and a (one) "most damnable out
rage" (still up). The outraged
editor has reached these compari-
cons and found the "most damnable
outrage which has ever been perpe-
trated by any citizen of the United
States" Some Hottentot or Po-
lander might possibly surpass this
but not an American. What was
this most damnable outrage and
who committed it? Abraham Lin
coin was assassinated, and bv a cit
izen OF the United States, but Booth
was not the man who committed
the "most dannable outrage. y
Guiteau shot down Garfield. He
was also an American citizen, but
he is not the man. Czolgosz, the
anarchist, in the presence of many
thousands OF American citiz-ns and
many other countries, murdered
President Mckinley, after waiting
and watching several days for an
opportunity to get near him. Col
gosz is an American citizen, but he
rs not the man who has reached the
highest distinction by committing
the "most damnable outrage. y
Worse than murder, worse than as.
sassination.
Who is he? What has be done
Bring him out that we may stone
him. Well, here he is. He is the
president Of the United States
How outraged we are when the
president of the United States does
some outrageous thing. But how
immensely outrageously outraged
we all are when he commits the
"mos, damnable outrage ever com.
mitted by aoy citizen of the United
States" We all have a right to
feel badly.
But what is the "most damnable
outrage" He invited Booker +
Washington to dine with him. But
why is this an outrage of any kind,
even Of the mildest type? If / OF
the editor Of the Scime,ar, both
southern born, and educated, had
Invited Booker T. Washington tc
dine it would not have been men,
toned. even as "darned" outrage,
and "darned" is not nearly so bad
as "damnable" with the "most'
left off. But at the table of the
White House is the United States
table. Therefore, the editor Of the
lScimetar has share in it. II is
his table. That table is no ordi.
nary, individual, personal table.
II is a representative table. Now,
then, If it is wrong, or wicked, OF
unpatriotic or immoral to invite
Booker T. Washington to dine al
that table, then the president has
done wrong. If it is "damnable'
or "most damnable" he is guilty.
Every American citizen will have
a right to feel offended and outraged
III President Roosevelt brings to that
(cur) table some outrageous thing,
and if it be "damnably outrage
GUS" thing we are the more out
ragged and wronged.
Now, personally, l don't feel any
great damage from the presence OF
Booker 7. Washington at our table.
l am not outraged.
But confidentially, l fear Mr..
Roosevelt will commit some kind OF
an outrage, will not say in my
own speech what kind, for l am a
preacher, and at that same table,
4 II "A