Baltimore Evening Sun (31 January 1914): 6.


All that remains is for some snouter to discover a Frank Kelly Club in The Sun office.–Adv.

The Hon. Willard H. Wright in the New York Evening Mail:

Girls, let him spend that night out with the boys. And as many of them as he wants. It’s the best cure. No more deadly form of sport has ever been invented than night-outing with the boys. Pleasure? Don’t you believe it. Three nights out with the boys and he’s a booster of the domestic fireside for life. A night out with the boys consists of sitting around a noisy kaif, bored to death, and gradually but surely getting sick. No civilized man would do it more than three times unless he thought some one didn’t want him to.

An air of hearty sincerity here. The earnest, autobiographical touch.

A DAILY THOUGHT. The man with nothing to do and the whole day to do it in is the one who misses the train.--Benedict Arnold.

The so-called Maryland Society of Social Hygiene, which has degenerated of late into a set of false whiskers for a small circle of knock-’em-down-and-drag-’em-out vice-crusaders, is sending out appeals for money to pay the expenses of a whooping match at Osler Hall on Tuesday evening. The chief ear-bumper will be the Hon. William R. Kenyon, United States Senator from the moral republic of Iowa, and author of the famous Kenyon Red Light law, which the Pentz Society is trying to browbeat their Legislature into putting on the Maryland statute book. This measure has been in force in Iowa for several years, and was lately passed by Congress for the District of Columbia, after a hot campaign by suffragettes, snouters, dealers in pornographic books and other such virtuosi. The Maryland Society of Social Hygiene now joins in the effort to pass it in Maryland.

The Society of Social Hygiene makes a great show of eminent names on its list of officers, but as a matter of fact it is run by our old friend, the Hon. Donald R. Hooker, M. D., editor of the Maryland Suffrage News and an advocate of mutilation for the erring. Its letter-heads announce that Dr. A. C. Harrison, F. A. C. S., president of the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland, is its president, and that it was “organized under the auspices” of the Faciilty. The plain inference, of course, is that Dr. Harrison is the leader of its pious jehad and that he is in favor of the Kenyon bill. Without having exchanged a word with Dr. Harrison on the subject, I feel safe in offering a reward of 20 cents cash to anyone who will come forward with evidence that this is true. As a matter of fact, Dr. Harrison is no more a vice-crusader than I am myself, and one reading of the Kenyon bill would probably be sufficient to convince him of its imbecility.

Other gentlemen who appear upon the society list of officers are Dr. Lewellys F. Barker, Dr. Charles O’Donovan and Dr. David I. Macht. If any of these gentlemen has actually become a convert to the snouting contemplated by the Kenyon bill, then I shall be glad to give free space to the fact. The truth is, of course, that they have not, and that there is not the slightest probability that they ever will. They are interested in social hygiene, not as snouters and pornophobes, but as men of science--and that scientific attitude which they represent is precisely the attitude which the Society of Social Hygiene has abandoned. It started out with a fair promise of lending a hand in the great war upon venereal disease; it is going to smash as an exponent of mere burbling, braggadocia and bosh.

My theological essay in yesterday’s issue, directed at my learned friend, the Rev. Dr. C. D. Harris, has brought me a large number of letters of thanks and support, and three invitations to preach. The facts of the case compel me to decline them all. The truth is that I did not write the article myself, but merely translated it into English. It was composed by a committee of theologians of the highest eminence, and only their yearning for academic seclusion kept them from signing their honored names to it.

The old Catholic Mirror, which departed this life several years ago, has lately returned to the field as the Baltimore Catholic Review, with the Rev. C. F. Thomas, J. C. D. LL. D., as its editor, and many of the clergy of the diocese among its regular contributors. It is an eight-page weekly of the size of The Evening Sun, clearly printed on good paper, and the contents of the first 10 issues show a diligent gathering of news and much interesting expository writing.

Such weeklies, I believe, are worthy of the utmost support, and Baltimore is fortunate in their increase. The daily papers, it must be obvious, are unable to devote much space to the special subjects, religious or otherwise, which the smaller publications can discuss at length, not only because space itself is short, but also, and more chiefly, because many of the questions raised are of such a character that they cannot be debated objectively. The Catholic Review may be depended upon to set forth Catholic doctrines intelligently, just as the Baltimore Southern Methodist, the Methodist and the Maryland Churchman set forth Protestant doctrines, and so it should be read with profit, not only by adherants, but also by outsiders interested in religious questions.

The Hon. Charles M. Levister, D. D., shinmaster of the Anti-Saloon Leg, on my failure to say anything about the melodramatic removal of liquor advertisements from the Pittsburgh Chronicle and Gazette-Times, those twin vestals of journalism:

Strange that our alert friend has not seen it.

Don’t be mistaken, dear one. I saw it quickly enough. But, seeing it, I maintained a magnificent silence about it–just as thou, old top, art magnificently silent about the revelations of levantine deviltry in “dry” Salisbury.

The Hon. James McEvoy, president of the Police Board:

I am willing to hear suggestions.

Suggestion No. 11: It is quite proper, of course, to listen politely to the fair ladies who dream so rapturously of a vast horde of snouting policewomen, sworn to the hounding of erring youth. But before making that dream a reality, the wise official will take careful account of two things, (a) the general reputation of these fair ladies for prudence, sound information and common sense, and (b) the past performances of the policewomen already on the job. As in the former, the “Warning to Girls” issued by the United Women of Maryland may perhaps help to a safe judgment, and as to the latter, the experience and opinion of the Marshal of Police.