Evening star., 1924-05-18

Inc hlSn nat question continued to
be subject of discussion in the
columns OF The
Silk Hats Star fifty years ago.
A,,;, Following a prev!-
Gus comment on
this question, the issue OF May -,
1874, says:
at is satisfactory to note a grow
ing disposition to revolt against the
tryannical edict OF fashion that pre-
scribes the absurd, inconvenient and
unhealthfu1 stove-pipe hat. An
article appeared in this column lately
giving cordial Endorsement to the
eloquent and convincing essay OF
julius Henri Brown against the
abominable silk hat and sknce then
two of our Sunday papers have taken
the matter up, the Herald and the
Capital. The former, to be sure.
affects to defend the silk hat, but
hits that ugly and uncomfortable in
fiction so many sarcastic side licks
that we are sure its heart is not in
its work. The insinuation, however.
of the Herald that our disarection
may come from losing a silk-hat bet
or having our own silk hat smashed
or otherwise demoralized impels US
to say that our last hat bet was with
paid like q man; and second, that
we have on hand a very good silk
hat, that we keep solely and sacredly
for funeral occasions, for which it
has really fitness. 1t is funereal in
color, and the way it shrouds and
degree. We defy anybody to put
on a silk hat, after wearing a com
Portable slouch, without looking as II
he had lost friend. The stiff rin
be said to enter the soul, and nips
the skin and risible muscles into a
fixed expression of gloom and affiic
ton most eloquently illustrative OF
bereavement. And the grim sedate
ness and circumspection of carriage
requisite to keep the stove-pipe hat
balanced on the head is calculated to
make q man shine in a funeral pro
cession. No jauntiness or levsty is
possible in a silk hat. When we get
on ours it is generally understood
that we are going to funeral.
y
The school book row was settled
half a century ago. by the school
board voting not to
No Change of make the changes
School Books. against an which com
plants had been made. The Star
having entered protest earlier, took
occasion in its issue of May IS, 1874,
thus to comment on the action:
"The action of the school board last
night in rejecting the proposition for
| change of school books will be re
ceived with no little qualification by
| the interested public, and The star
partakes in this qualification because Q
| of the stand it has taken In TINS
matter. Its rejection, too, by me
| decisive vote of IL to shows ina
| the Establishments Of the book drum :
| mers have been quite thrown away
on our school board. We intend no
| reflection in this remark on tne
| trustees who favored the chan ge:
| They were, no doubt, honest IN 1ne,.
| course, but we suspect they r..sae
| of the previous fight upon the IN
PRODUCTION of the same school poon,
| AS we have said heretofore, ve care
nothing for the individual text eoon
| upon which this contest nas oeen
made. but have opposed . cnanse On q =
the ground that it was the initiaiosss or
step to other changes, and FOR tns
| further reason that the book Wa
| adopted not long ago, on tne
BOOKS, and by a very large ma5orl.g
of the board. Thus indorsed. there ca.
certainly be no good reason -
another change so sPeeouy.s .s;ld-
Ike liz BOOK drunmers will take tho nins
from the action of the school trustee1 uec1
OF Washin gton last night, and diIeE. to
| their labors to other quarters anu "
1 -S..' fa ciIa school boards.