davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1917-02-21
GEMS OF THOUGHT

England, the mother OF Parlamsn,. ~. ~.
.-.-.-. --''o''''
The only way.to have a friend I, n r.. 90. -
10 ne one.-Emer-
s-s--.
You are not called 10 do work for God. go, .
called to do Gods work-Rsinsford you are
Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1917-02-21
MIR BTNTJNC,S CONDITION.

The condition OF the Rev. John J.
Bunting, pastor Of the st. Johns NJ. e,
Church of Seaford, is reported as lit
tie changed. Mr.. Bunting was taken
i'll last Sunday.
Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1917-02-21

Every want imaginable is pictured in
the Want Commns.-Adv.
Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1917-02-21
Editorial Opinion
SHE ADMITS III.


From the New York Sun.
Germany is fighting for the freedom
Of the seas and the sanctity OF inter
national law. This the world knows.
because Germany admits it. The pres
ent situation confirms Germanys po-
sitlon, as anybody can see, for:
Germany orders neutral ships to
paint themselves up like barber poles
IN the best style of German art;
Germany DEGREES how many neutral
ships shall sail from and for their
home ports each week;
Germany sinks neutral merchant
ships at sight without stopping for
warning, visit or search;
Germany orders neutral ships not
to arm themselves for protection
against pirates;
Germany amends international law
overnight in time Of war. as suits the
exigencles OF her own cause.
Plainly, therefore, Germany is the
defender OF freedom of the seas, the
guardian Of international law.
GERMANY MUST BE CRUSHED.
From Tho Louisville Courier-Journal.
We must take her Germany at her
word. The chief interest OF that noti-
fcatiOn, In so far as it concerns us,
is not its proof of the desperation OF
Germany's cause. Of her despair OF
winning the war by legitimate war
fare of her last hope against defeat
by resort TO tho last resort OF saw
agery left her. II Is not even her
virtual defiance of the civilized world
by her open proclamation Of her
resources to that policy. 10 is her
flat announcement TO us that she does
not mean 10 pay any further attention
TO our warning; her suave invitation
TO MS TO go to the devil with our pratt
ings about our rights on the sea. Now.
indeed, We shall sec just what man
ncr Of American we have in the White
House: sust what manner OF Ameri-
cans we have i'm Congress. Germany's
action is virtual challenge Of war
&c mankind II is direct challenge
OF war to tho United States. II is no
time for further PURIFYING. That
challenge should be accepted within
twenty-four hours, and the war thus
entered on by America should not
end until the imperial despotism OF
Germany, which dares plunge the
world into such war, is completely
and etcrnally crushed.
Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1917-02-21
BISHOP BLOCKNELL no IFCTTRF

Bishop George i. Blocl1nell, d. D..
L. l.. D., will lecture on tire subject
Sixteen Reasons Why Cannot Make
Speech" at Grace A. NJ. e. Zion
Church tomorrow night
Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1917-02-21

TIE Association 81
H~r~-~~~e~~~-~~~~- American Advertis.
I'm The Association Of Amog. ~ a.. eegp e o.
A4Ihe lean Advertisers has ts.rr Of tbi. eoun.
WnW amined and certified "a Z try. The Assoois.
the circulation 81 this pub I ton endorses only
heatien. The figures Of circulation Hsh paPsrS - sun
oontainea In che Assocatono ~ ton A anv nomnr,
pert only ere guaranteed. I and positive prooi
Association Of American Advertisers %S.' Be ,SS@,t,'S
Ne NI Wblishsn BIDS 4 y Ctr certificate. No tisi
-'--,r-------~-A this paper.
Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1917-02-21

a ROM George II. Bacon. assistant secretary OF the
- Delaware Schools Betterment Committee We have
received the following letter. which explains itself:
County Building. Wilmington, Del, Feb. 10, 1917.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18
BERTY AND UNION, ONE AND INSEPARABL]

traception has rendered collaborating and
sexual relations theoretically distinguishaole.
The growing will to spread that knowledge to
all classes will make the distinction in practice
likewise more possible. Much about marriage
will continue to be complicated, however, OBJ
viously enough, by the presence of children, and
not least the matter of economic independence.
For women in the lower wage earning groups
maternity and economic independence are en-
trely Incompatible The salared or capitalist
woman who commends economic independence
to the wage earning mother of little children
or to the expectant mother is a rank senti-
mentaliist, Sinking the facts of the case.
Without some comprehensive system, public or
private of maternity insurance without day
nursery kindergarten and school systems far
more ramified and responsible than current
systems the woman whose wage earning ca
pacity is low, whose opportunities for employ
ment are uncertain, and whose hours of en-
ployment are inelastic, has no choice between
economic dependence and independence. She
simply has to stay at home, to provide for her
child or children and to be provided for by her
husband. Did she choose Tor were she forced
by circumstance to 90 out to work she knows
that disaster would follow. There is no more
use of preaching economic independence to her
than to that average housewife who is not
allured by non-domestic callings. And for the
mother in the lower wage earning groups as
well as for the average housewife in all the
economic groups, there is no personal solution
Of the incompatbity. For her class as well
as for the average housewife | agree with one
of the most genuine and wsest feminists |
know, with Mary Simkhovitch, in thinking that
a more efficient education and better position
for women in industry Tor in business or in
the professons) are the chief ways by which
any choice of economic independence in mar
riage may be entertained.
Even so, economic independence will not al
ways be chosen Whatever the improvements
in girls education or in the position of women
as workers, the propaganda should realize that
some wives will always be hostile to indepen-
dence. THAT is the kind Of woman they are"
And, again, | ask, why not? There will always
be some men to want the economically manag
ing or managed wife; and why should such
men not be able to find women to their taste?
Only heartless doctrinab'c would wish to
deprive them of congenial women. All that the
non-doctIrn0ire propaganda should ask for is
that both men and women should have a
greater choice Of economic systems on mating
than they have or think they have, to-day.
There is to-day certain variety of economic
systems in marriage, variety greater than we
usually admit, but It is a variety due rather
TO enomonic cassifcations or to the exigencies
Of maternity than TO personal choice. There is
evidence however, that personal choice is about
to have freer play. A more considerable knowl-
edge of contraception, knowledge alike more
widespread and scientifically more valid, will
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18

en-, for example, or the state insurance of ma
ternity. The fact that members of the New
York Board of Education are not averse to the
employment of women whose husbands had, as
we say deserted them (quite irrespective Of
the cause of desertion) ; or the fact that there
is little or no opposition to state aid to widows
with little children suggests that it is no
merely economic or educational theory but a
theory of conjugality legislators and commits
sioners are protecting. 1t is, indeed, the theory
Of control through the purse they would not
have betrayed.
But commissioners Of education and state
legislators are not the only persons to hold
firmly TO this theory, and wives insist upon it
as well as husbands The man who does not
want his wife TO work for a living is matched
by (if not always with) the woman who does not
want to go out to work. The woman who feels
she has enough to do at home" composes the
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18

the glamour of distinction.) Why is there not
to-day greater degree of economic indepen-
dence in marriage? The question cannot be an
swered compendously, of course, without
historic review of the family as an economic
institution and, more particularly, of the chat
tel theory of woman held in past periods of our
culture. But let us assume that part of the
answer made-the facts have been so much
ventilated in recent years-and let US consider
the end of the answer dealing with latter day
facts. Let US start after the passage of the
married womens property acts in England and
their statutory equivalents in this country,
after the formal surrender of the theory of the
femme covert, of English common law, and let US
ask why forms of conjugal economic Deepen
dence have still been so sincerely cherished and
so holly defended? Why did the sporadic pin
money" system of our grandparents yield so
slowly to the monthly allowance and separate
checkbook system Of our parents? Why in our
day has the compensaton-for-ho
And why, in years to come, will the compensa-
ton system hold its own against some analogous
new fiction Of economic independence some
fresh compromise for actual independence?
Pin money, allowance, compensation-all are
mere pretences of independence. Whatever
their DISCUSSES, emotional or rationalistic-
emotional in the case of pin money and allow
ance, rationaistic in the case of compensation
whatever their DISCUSSES, these systems be-
long to the old proprietary theory of marriage.
Pin money or allowance is merely the equiva-
lent in a money system for the jewels or fine
garments Manu-, the Hindu code-maker coun-
sells all considerable husbands to bestOw upon
their wives, their unquestionablc possessions.
As for compensation, a system Of paying ac-
eording to the income of the employer, as Pro
fessor Montague has pointed out, and with no
mobility for the employe, can hardly be
accounted part of any free system Of employ
ment.
And yet, although these systems pin money
allowance and compensation, leave the citadel
Of marital control logically untouched, they
are concessions in practice TO the desire for in
dependence. Thus they have proved and will
continue TO prove acceptable TO that type Of
liberal whose rather blind business it is TO pro-
mote transitional fctions. For the same reason
they have been opposed and will continue 10 be
opposed by the more frankly conservative. For
covert, opposes systems practices which look
10 real economic independence in marriage. He
opposes opening employment to married WON
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18
By ELSIE CLEWS PARSONS

she rebels, separates. divorces, tries it over
again. But usually her rebellion is against
a person, the man who has failed her, not
against the system, her own system. The only
proof of change Of heart she may have to
offer, to be sure, is a rejection of alimony. But
how many poor Divorces with no other pro-
WIDER in prospect decline alimony?
As far as a change of heart in the average
housewife is concerned it is quite idle for the
propaganda of economic independence in mar
riage to preach it to her. She, likely as not
even more than her husband, wants household
and conjugal control through the purse. She
knows that her nominal dependence is really
form of control-if she puts it across. And for
the satisfaction of her desire to control she
sees no other opportunity. Until she sees some
other opportunity she will keep the one she
has. And why not?
Had she been differently educated-edu-
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18

"HERE appeared recently in the New
York newspapers an exchange of let
tiers and editorials on an experiment in
domestic budgets made by husband and wife
the editorial writer describes as a modernist
couple. Margaret and Winthrop Lane had
stated that they divided their joint household
bills equally and that after settling them each
kept what was left from his or her salary for
his or her individual expenditure. The ques-
ton ostensbly raised by the editorial writer
was whether this household arrangement was
or was not a partnership "Not even part
ners!" he exclaims.
The Lanes had little difficulty in proving
partnership. That they left the mind of their
editorial examiner unsatisfed, however, have
little doubt. For it was not their bookkeeping
he had been questioning at heart, but their
plex, as far as he could guess it, of con-
jugal ideas and feelings 1t was their discard
Of the theory Of conjugal control through the
domestic economy that perturbed him, and it
was their indifference TO the advantages Of con-
trolling wife or husband through the household
purse that provoked his challenge.
The complete indifference of the Lanes to the
sgelong conception that marriage is founded
in a domestic economy which affords oppor-
tunities for personal rule does, indeed, justify
describing them as modernists. To them house
keeping appears to be merely a matter Of NUT
usl convenience, circumstance TO favor or
facilitate their personal relationship, not con-
dition to mould it. Consequently, they set
about their joint housekeeping simply and ra-
tionally. Their economic adjustments remain
economic. The adjustments are frankly super
ii;ial, devoid Of any conscious or subconscious
Implications In other words, the Lanes, in
their household finances, are realists.
The Lanes are realists and their controver-
sal letter indicates that for the ancient salts
faction Of controlling persons they have substi-
tuted the modern or realist satisfaction Of con-
trolling impersonal facts or circumstance
Their sense Of achievement comes not from
managing each other or for each other, but from
managing the situations nature or society pre-
sents. In this diversion Of the will power,
would note in anticipation Of sentimental com
rnent, there is no self-denial. Let any senti-
nentslist who has argued that impersonality
requires abnegation or that there is no glamour
in rcalist endeayor read the Lane letter.
What holds others back from achieving SIM
lar satsfactions? n will not say, identical
sstisfaetions, for 10 irnitatorS would be denied
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18

Mss OpHELIA-Do you mean to stand
there and tell me that you are abso-
lutely ignorant of the fundamental prin-
pies in the propagation of species?
TopsY beginning to Weep)-I reckon
so, Miss Ophelia, but l won't never do
it again.
MISS OPnrLIA--Topsy, I'm going 70
tell you few plain facts.
At this point there may be quick
curtain or the scene can be held while
Miss Ophelia reads Chapters to 10,
inclusive, of "What Young Girl
Ought to Know" This, of course, is
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18

greatly increase the element Of choice So wi.
maternity insurance or endowment systems. 50
will Standardization with ventures Of the Lane
order
1t is for the younger women that freedom Of
choice in conjugal economy is 50 desirable
freedom to choose according to their character
their capacities, their interests. Have we not
all known girls land men tool who forewent
marriage because it meant to them giving up
work or the special work they liked, or because
it meant. thanks to its economic entangemen's'
they held, destruction of those elements m
the personal relationship they most valued.
This attitude engenders sexual antagonlsn'
it is hurtfu to those who hold it; It is hurtfOl
to their community. It is very important IT.
deed. for girls TO feel able, if they wish, TO keep
their sexual relations free from economic &c
termination. We recognize this fact IN or
cussing prostitution or marrying for money
but curiously enough we tend to smut our eye
to it in other connections.
We shut our eyes, / suppose, because I" m'''
of us marriage is marriage, common h0'"
for ALL That mould happens to be shape
largely by somewhat archaic domestic econ
omy, nevertheless it is a mould that must '
accepted, we say, by all, by persons OF tns in's
diverse circumstances, circumstances o. "sS
health, of economic status, and OF the m'''
diverse temperament and intellect. but s0''''
or later a culture like ours which encourSt'
diversity in personality will wish 70 lS'e v
facts of diversity in sexual relations NV
sity which began to exist just as soon a. "
ferentiations of personality arose. PerhSP'
society has already begun to realize tna' ~
theory of the common mould must 20 "',V
discard. Perhaps our society has aIreSDy
gun to say to itself that in view OF our "u'..
.edly heterogeneous sexual needs, II view
almost infinite forms of sexual demahu H'o
Spouse modern life favors, a society ina,
sists on the same sex relationship hOU''
pattern for all is an imposSby arfOsS" :.
tyrannical society. Perhaps our So''e';' -
grows willing TO live up to the spirit Oh ",.
ernity by regulating not so much inc 80,
life of others as the conditions they i've W. u
inducing rs VIII to power mpersonS'' n
therefore affording itself larger H''''
tolerance. arr
At any rate, note that only a rev ,s,, q
AGO in New York little variation hAe Ug =,
the Lanes would not have been trea'eu w., s.t
much. shall we say, tolerant good naIu n,S,rsis
has lately been accorded. The next nv, ,S.y 1,
couple we hear from may tell tnat a. s. Se .,
not keep house together at sll' life ,, un0, xs,s
same roof, they hold, is deHoralil a1s ',rdd
ever the pecuniary arrangement to tnY ,.' S /,
intimacy they most value. We may ~ ",' We
them too, tolerantly and soOd-na'ureun o,,,sr,
NAV nav even be persuaded that for some ps nous
or for certain relationships the COMM" rs,,
hold al life may be drawback We may ~ 70
and with a smile call the experiment
worse name than modernist indlylduS''
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18

a matter which must be left to the
author, the audience, and the local
Chief of Police.
Topsy is not the only character III
Uncle Toms Cabin" who has been
neglected. 1t might be well to develop
the plot along the lines laid down III
those film plays whose posters proclaim
This mother told her child; this moth
er did not" Little Eva naturally would
be the model child and Topsy the hor
rible example.
The play might begin with an idyllic
scene in which Little Eva is seen read
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18

ing her HavelOck Ellis in words OF one
syllable. while near by sits the faithful
Uncle Tom porting and mumbling over
a well thumbed copy Of What an Old
Colored Gentleman Ought to Know"
Of course, the death Of Little Eva
would have to be rewritten and new
twist put into it. That would be simple
enough. First of all, the relatives and
servants are called to the bed Of the
dying child, who sits up and while her
strength remains speaks in girlish en-
thusiasm of what Krafft-Ebing has
meant to her. By and by her musical
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18
The Play Is Pull of Biz
Scenes Which the Old.
Fashioned Dramatist In.
umiably Missed. The Bay.
ing of the Bloodhounds
DrownS the Call to Ser
Education, and Eliza $
Infant Suffers eedlesslv

voice grows weaker, although its ca.
dences are still sweet. Every ono
crowds close so as not to miss a word
but presently it is evident that Eva i
wandering. She is not all there. OF
a sudden a beatifc smile overspreads
her face and she stretches out her arms
ST. CLARE-Eva, darling, tell US what
you see.
EvA-I see the angels.
ST.. CLARE (MusingIy)-She is dream.
ing of angels. Now, wonder what she
can mean. That's a symbol | don't
know. Run and get DR.. Freud, Topsy;
your mistress has a complex.
The scene in which DR.. Freud comes
and explains what the dream means
may be excluded at the discretion of the
Mayor.
1t may be pointed out, also, that while
Eliza will be called upon to cross the Ice
there is no longer any particular need
Of the bloodhounds. Their baying
might serve to drown the clarion call to
sex education. As for Eliza, it will be
shown by the dramatist in due course
that birth control might have made Il
unnecessary for her to cross the ice to
save her child from being sold into
slavery. At any rate, but for the child
she could have cut ten and twO-ffths
seconds off her time, which still stand;
as an Ohio record, conditions of track
and everything else being taken into
consideration. But perhaps that is an.
other drama.
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18

Miss OPHELn-Topsy, do you mean
to tell me that you never read Drel
Abhandlungen zur SeEuaItheorle!
TopsY-Yes, Missy.
Mss OpHELA-Or "SeTuelle Amor
mitGten der Kinder?
TopsY-'Deed / do, missy.
MISS OpHELn-Have you any knowl-
edge whatsoever of the fundamental
principles Of biology?
ToPsY-Buy what, Miss Ophelia?
MISS OPHELn-Did you ever cut open
a frog?
TopsY-Oh, lordy, no!
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18

bulk Of every eco
nomic class Of wom-
en-, from the woman
who expects her hus-
band to bring her
his weekly pay en-
velope unopened to
the woman who ex-
poets her husband
to pay wha t e yer
m o n t hly bills she
has run up. This
average woman, the
housewife by choice,
feels that the only
satisfaction open to
her will to power
lies in controlling or
attempting to con-
troll the household
finances and through
them, in part at
least, her husband.
Her sense Of achieve
inent finds varie d
expression. 1t may
express itself in be-
ing thrifty; in max
ing ends meet; in
getting her or his
moneys worth, or in
being eXtravagant;
in running up bills,
in unrestrained shop
ping; in the sense
Of being luxuriously
kept. In endless in
stances, as we know,
the average woman
fails TO achieve this
household and wifely
control. Sometimes
she submits, a pros
trate dissa tbs fl e d
woman; sometimes
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18

Gated to a profes-
sion, to a well paid
trade, to business
or to cleric or
administrative work
and were there the
same chances in her
community for eco
nomic or profession
al remuneration and
a d va n cement for
women as for men,
then, indeed, the av-
erage married wom-
an might, like the
average mar ri e d
man, look to other
than domestic forms
Of satisfying the de-
sire to control. In
5 h + (, for women
economic indie p G n
dence in marriage is
ps y chologically as
well as practically
a question insepara-
bic from the educa-
tion of girls and the
position of women
in the professions,
in business, in adj
ministration and in
industry.
Practically, &c o.
nomic independence
in marriage is also
inseparable from the
situations presented
by maternity. Until
recently, even theo-
retically maternity
entered of necessity
into every question
Of onjugality.
knowledge OF con-
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-02-18

me IfOUUIH IUJtH CWCLc
Toms Cabin" Is That 1t
Lacks a High MmalPMr-
pose. Also, Logic; for
TobSy, in Her Ignorance
and Innocence, Must In
evita6ly Haze Groom Up
10 Be a White Slave
"A Tns OpHELA-How old are YOU
M TOpsy?
TorsY-Dunno, missy.
Miss OrHELA-Don't know how old
you are? Didn't anybody ever tell you?
Who was your mother?
TopsY with a broad grin)-Never
had none.
MISS OPHELIA-Never had any mother.
What do you mean? Where were you
born?
Torsr (StiU grtnntng)-Never was
bornl 'spect I just crowd.
At this point the singularly old
fashioned playwright who dramatized
Uncle Toms Cabin" allowed the po-
tentially big scene of his play to slip
from his fingers. The tragedy of Topsy
went by unseen, for the playwright
failed to point out that she must in
evitably grow up to be white slave
because of her innocence.
A smart, up-to-the-minute dramatist
might do much with "Uncle Toms
Cabin" even now if he only had high
moral purpose in front of him and
"The Medical Review of Reviews" be-
hind him. His cue, of course, would
be Topsy-Never was born! 'spect
] just growed.
The scene might then continue: