The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-04-06
ENOUGH.

On, what is enough for one. my love,
Is always enough for two
The stars and the MONDAY sun, my love,
viii satisfy me any you.
One little umbrelI for the days of rain,
One little love song with a soft refrain
WIN certainly nicely do.
Oh, what is enough for one. my love.
Is always enough for two.
Theres heat enough In a ton. my love,
For any fond lovers true.
One coy parlor will serve us well.
And one little cook va" and a hired ageis '''
VIII carry US nicely through.
Oh, what is enough for one. my love,
Is always enough for two.
And when the old day is done, my love,
ri show SSs you how ons s dear little chair
Holds plenty Of room, and some to spare
AT fu Wright light time for loving I par
Yes. what is enough for one. my love.
Is always enough for two.
In troubled time or in fun, my love,
One portion will always do.
One sweet little sea by the moonlit shore,
One heart. one soul, one mother-in-law
Is ample for me and you!
Carlyle Smith, in Saturday Evening Post
The Living and the Dead.
An interesting example of what We
may call BilstumpSism is reported
from the State of New Jersey in con-
ment on the scene of one of the minor
battles of the revolutionary war-at
Red Bank. Some years ago the State
government at State expense, provided
for the construction of the monu-
ment for the sake of convenience in
trusting the direct supervision of the
work to the local board of freeholders.
The latter body then secured the pas
sage of a supplementary act authoriz-
ing it at its own expense or that of the
county to place a suitable memorial
tablet upon the shaft. This was done,
and it was supposed that everything
was gracefully concluded.
But they who cherished that fond
delusion reckoned not with Bill
Stumps. For it was speedily perceived
that the perennial brass substantially
ignored the battle which the monu-
ment was supposed to commemorate
the collective Bill Stumpses of the
board of freeholders. 1t was their
and their names led all the
rest in the memo rial inscription. When
some, of the Sons of the Revolution
saw it, however, they were not at all
inclined to take it in a Pickwickian
sense-or spirit. They demonstrated
and secured the passage of another
act, making their society the custodian
of the monument. Armed with such
they stripped off the Offend
ing advertisement of the greatness of
Bill Stumps and replaced it with a
tablet in memory of the battle of
Red Bank. The freeholders retaliated
by tearing off the latter, and restoring
"Bil Stumps His Mark to its place
upon the shaft. Then the attorney
general of the State warned them that
their act was illegal, that the Sons of
the Revolution were the custodians of
the monument. and that the tablet
prepared by the society must be re-
placed and retained. Whereupon the
freeholders retorted that the State had
no right to the grounds on which the
stood without the consent
and permission of the freeholders, and
that if the wishes of the board were
not complied with such consent and
permission would be withdrawn. No
Bill Stumps inscription, no monument,
and there's an end on'ti
What the next move will be in this
pretty game for brazen glory remains
to be seen. but we shall be much
surprised if it does not mark a triumph
for Bill Stumps. Why not? Surely
living dog is better than dead lion.
Who cares anything about the battle
Of Red Bank. anyway New York
Tribune.