The commonwealth. (Scotland Neck, N.C.) 1896-1929, 1914-05-14

town as often as necessary to attend
to their business concerns during
the week. Five extra minutes and
five cents at the cool drink fountains
would scarcely be missed and the
extra energy arising from the re-
freshment might even rebound to
their material profit. If there real
ly are individuals too busy to spare
so much time, I say to them they are
paying too much for their whistle;
such an one is not only burning his
candle at both ends but has actually
tossed it into the fire. I go even
further and say that if you can pro-
duce one such hard working indlvid-
ual you may retire with safety from
the newspaper business assured that
you can make your fortune by ex-
hibiting him as curiosity in ''low-
browed show" Ridiculous! Alb
surd! They are INDEED the.words.
| You next facetously touched upon
mosquito swamp and Lake Bacte-
rial Some puddles Of water have
stood at times on Main staeet. We
all regret it, but the drainage seems
Idifficult. l feel sure the committee
whose business it was to attend to
such matters tried to remedy the
trouble. There are also several
Lakes Bacteria" (or cesspools), we
understand, situated just beyond
the corporate limits of the town.
They are exceedingly offensive and
dangerous, but they do not lie with
in the jurisdiction of the town au-
thorities.
! Now as to the shows we plead
| guilty to the indictment. But have
lyou read the law on this point? If
| not will inform you that under the
State law we cannot refuse shows
admittance, and a number of unde-
sirable shows have come Scotland
| Neck seems to have weakness for
shows {not the higher class shows
either, as the disgracefully small at
tendance on the Lyceum Course
abundantly testifed). Again sup
pose we had had the authority to
| exclude shows, have you asked your
self what would the result would
). have been? They would have pitch
ed their tents beyond the town linz
] it's; WOULD HAVE BEEN EX-
EMPT FROM TOWN TAX and
: ! WOULD HAVE CARRIED AWAY
, JUST AS MUCH MONEY with them.
}, Methought l heard some one say,
Consistency what jewel though
| art" Take note, Mr.. Editor, WE
} did not guarantee the shows nor ad-
I wise any one to go to them. But
just below the philippe against the
: commissioners in last weeks issue
? noticed quite glowing 'sad" for
: the show that has just left the town.
2 Does the editor occupy a very re-
4 tsponsible position, and should he not
: be very circumspect how he imposes
E on his subscribers by soliciting pat.
| ronage for 'low-browed" shows!
{ Just what is an editors moral duty
when even advertising is concerned:
f Have not the ideas of better class
e editors and newspaper men shough'
Y a higher level Of late in regaad tt
t these very things?
n Then you served the old tocsin,
/ "Unconstitutional'! The mellifu
S ent and sonorous syllabication of tht
: word unconstitutional" has beer
v used many time and Oft err
n this to intimidate the faint hearted
+ Now I am not SO sure that ou
l. much belabored law is unconstitu
nj tional; but IF by any possible chance
;, it SHOULD be have never been il
t. any sense a believer in infalibiliIy
d and by proving the point you will
e only prove that our grand constitu
J. ton q say it reverently) stands il
e need of another amendment.
But having done with trivialties
= let us consider one practical, pert
1T nent issue: On no higher groun
than a purely commercial basi
g would it de equitable or even logics
V, to allow the drug stores to sell sof
in drinks on Sunday and prohibit otl
n ers, when the drug stores do nc
e. even represent majority of tn
7e fountains in town? If we were thu
IL arbitrary in our laws and failed t
IN see that each interest has a fai
Ii chance before the law we would b
d.! liable to far harsher epithets tina
Iy Ithat of stringency. We might the
to be accused Of favoritism and ella!
. legislation. Would Allsbrook
G. Boyette, J. W. Allsbrook, j. v
= Robertson, N. Herring, Stricklan,
and others I might mention, thin