Baltimore Evening Sun (13 January 1912): 6.

For Vice-President Of the United States: THE HON. MAHONI AMICUS.

Platform: 1. Down with the merit system! 2. Down with the Finneys! 3. Down with the newspapers! 4. Down with Sunday novel-reading! 5. Down with Bob Crain!

Committee: The Hon. Berney Lee, Chairman, The Hon. George Lewis, The Hon. Public Man Biggs, The Hon. Sonny Mahon, The Hon. Jake Hook, The Hon. Bill Garland.

Breif extract from the new tragedy, “The Osseocaputs”:

Semi-Chorus—Who done it? Chorus—Him!

But don’t forget that the Honorary Pallbearers passed a resolution promising their moral support!

The forceful and unequivocal remarks of the Hon. Robert C. Crain:

In regard to the banquet proposed to be given me, I want it distinctly understood that the last thing on earth I would have is a banquet in my honor.

Consternation in the journalistic message parlor! Another keg of salve upset.

What did I tell you? Ain’t I said all along no harm wouldn’t never come to none of them stuffers?

How the molasses gurgles from the docile literary jug:

The dashing Harry is being heartily congratulated by his numerous friends and admirers.

To which a few lines of interpretation may be added, viz:

Friend—One who has a job. Admirer—One who expects a job.

Only 1,221 days more! To March 4. 1913, only 416 days!

Boil your drinking water! Swat the fly! Watch the City Council! Turn the picture of the Hon. “Bob” Crain to the wall!

Stupendous feat of mathematics by the Administration masseur:

The mention of Mayor Preston’s name in connection with the Vice-Presidential nomination on the Democratic ticket would, if successful, give Maryland representation in the upper house equal to three Senators.

That is to say, it would give Maryland one Senator, one sub-Senator and one super-Senator.

The more you prove to me that Stovey done it, the more I stick to it Stevey wouldn’t have did it if he had knowed what he done.

A bitter letter from the Hon. O. A. Manikin, with whom I have, unfortunately, no personal acquaintance, will be found in today’s Letter Column. In this letter the Hon. Mr. Manikin accuses me of wooing the ear with meaningless words, and, in particular, alleges that no intelligible significance attaches to the words “moralist,” “chemical purity” and “virtuoso of virtue,” as I habitually use them. In reply to these charges, it is a pleasure to submit precise definitions, to wit.:

Moralist—One who believes that he is more capable of judging my private acts than I am myself; one who holds, in particular, that all acts which please me are indecent; a smuthound; a snouter. Chemical Purity—That state of being in which all the natural instincts are held to be obscene and laughter a blasphemy; the estate or quality of moral hyperæsthesia; a conspiracy against joy; virtue grown virulent; the pathological fear of naughtiness. Virtuoso of Virtue—One who holds that all human acts must be either right or wrong, and that 99.99999999999999999999 per cent. of them are wrong; one who believes that the right to forbid is invariably superior to the right to do; a man with a 10 per cent. solution of biochloride of mercury in his veins; a connoisseur of sin—in others.

Excellent definitions, costing me a full hour of sweating, but still not quite perfect. I have not got into them, perhaps—not, at any rate, with proper emphasis—the notion of compulsion. To make it clearer, I commonly use “militant” in front of “moraliat,” or take refuge in some more precise term, such as “frenzied purist” or “mad mullah.” It is his militancy, in brief, that gives the militant moralist his peculiar and obnoxious character.

Merely to subscribe to some rigid moral code, however absurd it may be, is not in itself an invasion of the rights of others. Most of us do it; many of us take a good deal of pride in it. Nor is it offensive to seek to make converts, provided always that the traditional punctillio of the dialactic and the etiquette of civilized invective are observed. If, for example, I am detected in the act of smoking a five-cent cigar, it is perfectly competent for any person who regards cigar-smoking as a crime to say so in my presence, and to challenge me to meet him in debate. Going further, it is perfectly competent for him to denounce me as a sinner, and to warn my friends against associating with me. But when, not content with this, he proceeds to snatch my cigar out of my mouth, or to belabor me with a club from behind, or to have a law passed condemning me to 30 days in jail, then he goes beyond his rights, and I am fully justified in calling him names, in pulling his whiskers and in blacking his eyes. And whether I am justified or not, I am going to do it.

Militant morality, of course, ceases to be offensive when it concerns itself with acts whose immorality is universally admitted. Such acts are not numerous, but it is still possible to name a few. For example, the act of cutting off the ears of a new-born baby. It may be theoretically possible to defend that crime, but it is not practically possible. No man in his right senses would do it, or even advocate it. It is one of those acts which are reprobated, with substantially unanimous voice, by all civilized white men. And it is not unique. Various other acts are held in almost equal detestation. You will find a number of them mentioned in the Decalogue, which is the fundamental moral code of most civilized nations. Others, not in the Decalogue, are equally disapproved. The overwhelming sentiment of mankind is against them.

But that very fact, of course, destroys their usefulness to militant moralists. What joy is there in attacking something which no one defends? What fame is to be got out of denouncing the amputation of babies’ ears? None at all, to be sure. Therefore, it happens that militant moralists, ti attract attention, to win a rep-

[Continued some other time.]