The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-09-07
ON SECOND THOUGHT
BY Jay e. HOUSE.
tFrom PhiiadelpAia Public Ledgss.l

our reply to K. H. Hager is 20
clear" writes W. D. H. that 1t makes
II not, why waste your talents on such
as he?" That brings to the surface
what seems 10 us to be rather in
teresting sequence of thought. Every
once in while we are confronted By
the allegation that this is a humorous
column. It IL not humorous and it
does not pretend TO be. But once in a
while something funny appearssn 1t.
To us. nothing that appears herein is
as funny as the lucubrations of those
who abuse us or those who demand
a severance of our tenuous connection
with the payroll. We are always vast
ly amused when some indignant bro
indian, who never had a thought he
could call his own and who cannot, to-
save his life, express himself inteil.-T
gently or grammaticaiiy, rears himself
long enough from the rick of OBJ
or a fathead. We like to pass the joke
along and, IN doing so. we usually
take occasion to salt it with little
propaganda for common sense.
In limited way, those who abuse
us and those who seek to have us
forcibiy elected from this swivel chair
make" life-for US. They serve to
buttress our belief that the we'll
known human race, saving always the
exceptions, is dull, futile instrument
which nobody need fear and with
whose good or bad opinion nobody
need concern himsel. Serious opinion
in this column is always expressed i'll
decent and orderly fashion. When in
this free and grand and glorious coun-
try some citizen with whose viewpoint
we have thus collided seeks to make
silence the price of our bread and hut.
ter. we leap and frivol in sheer Joy.
And, in most instances, we pass the
Joke along that others may enjoy ii.
We've lost track of the number of
times in the quarter of century last
past that thu public has arisen in its
might and demanded our professional
head as trophy. 1t must run well
into the hundreds. Those of which
we Shall presently write rise readily
from the limbo ofamefnory:
|sr~Well do we remember the mob that
chased US for insulting Madame
Schumann-Heink.- We had just taken
over musical criticism on the new
paper with which we then were con-
nected and we had a theory about It,
1t was that musical criticism was. as
rule, too stodgy, too dignfied and
too technical for Newspaper reading.
We hoped tosfurbish it up and make
it light and gay and airy. And so,
in effect, we wrote that Madame
Eehumann-Heink waddled on the
Of applause. Even then and ever since
we have questioned the good taste of
that phrase. With the greater skill
and the larger experience that have
since come to us, We should not now
SO phrase it.si Wed do 1t by inaplica-
ton and not by direction. At that.
there was no reason for the uproar
that ensued- 1t was held by the must
cal and artistic contingent that we
had insulted the madame and killed
music in the town. The Musical Art
society met solemflfy, and under the
| buttons Of condemnation. 1t asked
that we be deprived of further live
| lihood in that community. What hap
pened? Nothing much. For fifteen
years thereafter we wrote OF music
| In that community. The madame,
with whom we some years later dis
leussed> the incident laughed in1mod-
erately about it, iMein friend" she
said, fthat is the only way can get
on the stage. You should SO have
told them."9' -k 9ss
l. We don't remember how many
times we have been. anathetna to u
segmentfef. the public because of a dis
position freely and frankly to discuss
prohibition. We lived long in pro-
| hibition State where discussions of
prohibition were not. permitted. We
Insisted on discussing 1t, and, as re-
| suit, the cid job was always in peril.
Once we accused a Hero Govern or of
| four-flushing on prohibition. The
Hero Governor put us in Jail, con-
structively speaking, for fourteen
months to the accompaniment of wild
applause from an enthusiastic popu-
lace. In Los Angeles>once areporter
| for the Times came to interview us
about prohibition. CALIFORNIA; con-
| templated an indulgence in prohibition
and was Interested. We told the re-
porter gentleman what we eoneeived
to be the siowdown" We took no
position for or against. We just told
him what we knew of our own per-
sonal knowledge. The interview beat
us back to the community which We
habitually pervaded. Figuratively
| speaking, the public met US at the
border line of the state with dogs
preparatory to chasing us into the far
| beyond. But we continued to- fnfest
| the state for many years thereafter
ana nothing happened. We did have,
| first and last. a good bit of fun in the
| connection.
1 =