The Camden chronicle. (Camden, Tenn.) 1890-current, 1903-06-19


TO doi / decided 20 ignore 1t and pro.
coed az though lt had not occurred.
"lf you ask me-" be answered, IL
should say that there Is u tribe too
much hceswaX on r."
This reply was still more upsctting
However, ! made q bold dash.
Given such a floor and a partner
whose step suits one, what could a girl
want more"
lie was not silent He did not stare
at the toes Of his pumps. He did not
evidently know what was coming.
Instead. be answered genlally:
Don't matter a button-top TO me.
The only dancing I ever do IS TO walk
through square. But 1 dar, say that
what you suggest Is very jolly for those
who like IT,"
This was too vexing. It quite killed
my opening for that metaphor about
"The Ball Of Life" and Heaven on
Earth" so I was brought to a stand
still. Soon afterward he took me back
to mamma; and the chance was gone.
Evidently Dollys method was no go.
And on thinking It over l saw why il
was no so. 1t was because 1t was an
abusive method Now the abusive
method IS, no doubt, very sound for a
man, and for this reason: Woman
knows him TO be a proposing animal;
she Is, therefore, on the Qul viye; she
leads up to 1t. But woman proposing
for the first time, as l was doing, is in
a very different position. The man,
naturally, never suspects her inten-
ton (havlng always regarded her as n
mere passive prcposee); he cannot
make out what she Is driving at, and
so her allusiyeness Is lost on him.
Eyes" said to myself, "there is only
one way-the direct way. I must treat
him as one treats children. I must be
plain, literal, precise. 1 must say
what I mean In the most simple, un-
equivocal language. Yea! l must as
1t were, propose to him In words of one
syllable. 4 love you. win you wed
me? There can be no mistake about
that. 1t is the formula that I shall
certainly adopt"
We next met about four days later.
It was in a tea shop in Bond street. l
was drinking chocolate alone at 4
little table. There was a bunch of
hyacinths in a vase on the table. He
came In; he saw me; he took a chair
opposite to me. Greetings were ex-
changed. l looked about No one was
near. Here was my chance. Brayely
l began:
81 love"
There stopped. The 'you"-simple,
easy little word-would not for some
reason come out 1t stuck in my throat
well! What do you love?" he in
quired.
The "what" irritated me- Was ever
such incorrigible denseness? A woman
would have had the sense to say
whom" as q matter Of course. But
he had invited a neuter, and a neuter
he should have, if only to punish him.
II love-hyacinths," l said, GROSSLY.
Yet even here there would have been
a way out had he possessed an ounce
of perception. He had only to say, as
a woman in like case would have said:
"Happy hyacinths"
Then l should have remarked:
81 always associate you with hya-
cinths"
But what do you think the opaque
creature did say?
Don't care for 'em myself? Smell
too strong"
1t was really impossible to do any
thing with such a perfect miracle of
obtuseness. So my second chance was
lost.
However a reformer who gives in
after two failures is no reformer
must try again. must be still molcC
simple; still more elementary in mr.
language. After all, the 81 love you!
VIII you wed me?" formula was what
logicians would call a complex PROPOSE
tion-a combination of the categorical
81 love you" which in view Of what
followed, was really superduous.
would only retain the essential por-
ton, viz, the interrogative "Will you
wed me?"
Four plain words of one syllable,
Surely, these admitted of no ambiguity
or misapprehension.
Our next encounter was in Piccadilly,
on the north side, near Devonshire
House. I was walking west, he east
We met face to face. held out my
hand. He took it. Now was the time
l made the fateful plunge.
"Win you"
Would you believe it? At that SUI
preme moment. by the cruellest stroke