Arizona republican., 1901-04-12
, PRICE BAKING POWDER CO,
 CHICAGO.

which many other men have placed themselves and thus in so far becomes 2 typical instance. What concerns us is to inquire whether the example he set is one worthy to be followed or not
 My own persuasion is that it Is an example sedulously to be avoided. In order to escape misinterpretation. let us leave Mir. Deake entirely out of the argument and imagine case to suit ourselves.
 The way of a man With a maid is a way lhickly set with perils and per pleXities. 1t is fruitful theme for jests with our current humorists and if we affirm that the only approxi- mately safe thing for man to do with a woman is to marry her. somebody in cap and bells leaps jingling to his feet and hands us out some shcpworn cyni. cism. We retire under U flood of ane- rithmon gelasma-of muitltudinous guffaws; but the truth remains that the only secure relation between a man and woman who are not blood-kin, who are of near the same ago, and mar riageable is marriage. The statement might be made stronger than this, but this will do for the present
 Allowing for the few sporadic eXcep- tlons which prove every rule. there can be no such thing as simple friendship between young man and young wo- man (young, whether in years or in feelings). unless one or both of them are already a party to a true and happy matrimonial bond. That is to say, if you are irrevocably In love with your wife and she with you, you may with reasonable assurance contract a friend ship with wife who is irrevocably in love with her husband and he with her. There may not he much profit in such a friendship. and one Is probably as well without it; but that is why 1t Is safe. And whatsoever goeth beyond this limitation is prone to beget trouble. as the sparks fly upward.
 The youth defies experience, is enthu- siastic and morally ambitious: and ac- cordngly we see some benevolent young woman approach come misguid- ed young man, who drinks too much, let us say. and is ruining his fine nat ural talents by his self indulgence; and she sets herself the angelic task of re- deeming him. She communes seriously with him, eXhorts him, pleads with him, bids him be a man and put Satan under his feet. Flattered or touched by her interest in his welfare, he reforms; but one day he turns up drunk once more. She is deeply hurt, and shows 1t; tells him that unless he can reform himself altogether their relations must inevt- alI In -f,Y pir1 ic inI ht, her associates. Hereupon the conver- sation takes a more personal turn; he appeals to her not to forsake him; with out her he Is bound to go to perdition anyway; in fact, unless she sticks to him to perditlln he will go--it is a threat
 The religious and moral aspects of the case are getting into the background, you see; and yet how can she but feel fiattered that he should find In her a stronger motive for reform than either morality or religion could supply? She feels something kindlng in him; she becomes aware of a contagious kind ling in herself. In the sequel, the man does not reform, and she does not for sake him: and we need follow this case no further. It began with the best and purest motives; but 1t is III meddling with souls. Besides. if we probe the thing to the bottom. was there not little mingling of personal vanity with those good and pure motives, from the outset? And was it not just little more interesting and agreeable to un- dertake the saving of a mans soul than the soul of an unfortunate of ones own sex
 Let us concede the possibility. and further remark that the man in the drama finds 1t pleasanter to be wrestled with by one of the opposite sex than by a fellow man; not because the mans motives are less open to misnterpre- tation than the w0man's, but precisely because they are not. He surmises that there must be something more than love of abstract good in her pre- occupation with him. and the selfish desire to authenticate this assumed power of his over her abstracts his mind