The Palatka news and advertiser. [volume] (Palatka, Fla.) 1908-19??, 1913-05-16

. taxes, Whlch would acfue from hav-
ing the plants within our city, would
be lost to us, and prevent the beauti-
l flying of our streets, etc, to Il great
l extent. Commercially, this would
be one of the most foolish ideas, and
if for no other reason than for the
filling of our city treasury, | Ger
: tainly think that it would be the
height of folly to put over the fence
the chen that lays the golden egg"
simply because it cackled little too
loud, or because its plumage was not
pretty enough to our artistic eye"
And this brings me to the second
point, namely, the appearance.
1t is quite true that, from an ar
tistic point of view, the modern fac
tory is not as pleasing to the eye
as are the beautiful temples of the
old world, adorned by their Gothic
towers and Ionic or Doric columns.
But neither is the interior of an ar
lists st.--o or that of a sculptor
very ia IN ting to the eye of con-
noissa ~ VI the beautiful, and yet it
is fro-l such places that paintings
and sculpture of the most priceless
value are issued. But even if they
are not fascinating to an architects
critical inspection, can we say that
they are not pleasing to the eyes of
a commercial people, such as we are?
think not. Who is more proud than
a successful farmer, when he is show
ing any one his lands where his
crops are growing, the land where
from he gets his livelihood, and why
should it not be the case with the
manufacturer, in showing you where
his money is accumulated, whether
it be in the foundry, mill or other
kind Of workshop. But then, who will
say that a workshop is an eyesore?
In this city we certainly have not
many, but | think the few we have
are not disgrace to any civic beau
ty. Look at the Tank Factory. Do
you find anything disrasteful to the
eye? The same with the Selden
Sash and Door Factory, and the Will
son Cypress Mill They are the three
principal workshops of our city, and
yet no one could say that their. APP
pearance was in any way repugnant
to the most fastidious civic taste.
But some will say that it is, when we
have cotton mills, or some such in
S'HSSiy5 NIlSil &c SIHUhG-
stacks are towering above the houses,
that it is not always pleasant to the
view. This may be. The continual
issuing Of smoke is not the most
pleasant on murky day, but why
for that reason, should we ostracize
them-all days are not gloomy or
cloudy. Yet, let US suppose that our
city was surrounded by mills, ETC.,
would that be the better way of keep
ing the distasteful view from our
midst? l do not judge that such
would be the case, but l should say
that it would rather tend to have an
opposite effect. If we are shut in by
these buildings, we cannot have but
one view, and that will be the work.
shops, etc, but if we surround them
by our homes, at least we will have
the chance to relieve the monotony
of vision by at one time looking on
the works of nature, and at another
time looking on the works of man.
By the Capitalization of business in
terests, we are also brought into
closer union with the laborers, who,
by some people at least, are not con-
sidered the best of society. This
brings me to my third and last point,
the workers.
By collective body of inhabitants,
presume will be meant, people from
all classes of society; from the mil
lionaire to the pauper. In the great
creation of the universe, it is a well
known fact that all classes of people
constitute the human family; true
collective body: Wealthy and poor,
(rich and pauper), pious and impious,
moral and immoral. But who is to
judge which class of people is the
better; the professional or the la
borer? Surely if a man is good
enough to earn your money for you
by honest sweat, he is good enough
to breathe the same atmosphere with
you, and especially should it be con-
sidered so in this great country of
ours, which is--or at least ought to
be-a great democracy. This is the
Iron Age. We have passed from the
time when the Beaux Arts consti-
tuted the only thought and ambition
of people. We are a people of
energy and our energetic forces are
concentrated in the building of gigan-
tic bridges, railroads and sky-scrap-
ers. But who do the work? Is it
not often the underpaid employee who
is despised on account of his poor
literary attainments, mannerisms and
often his shabby attire? But do you
not think that by the closer com
of the employer and the en-
ployee, these drawbacks could easily
be removed? The one would learn
from the other and by so doing, the
world at large would benefit, and the
city in particular. By the master
paying a just wage to the man, the
latter could be better read, clothed
and housed, and the former better ap-
preciated.' All men are mortal, and
all have about the same number of
faults.
To bring this argument to a close,
let us look at a few of our more
prosperous cities, and see if am at
fault. We have our metropolis, New
York. This city is surrounded by
beautiful homes, mansions for the rich
and modest cottages for the poor, and
the great enterprises of industry con-
stitute the center of the city. Is it
prosperous? Pittsburg is another
city full of manufacturing plants, and
yet it seems to prosper. The home
Of the Steel Industry, overshadowed
by the smoke of its factories, vet a
rich and prosperous city for the mas