Baltimore Evening Sun (2 April 1914): 6.


The immoral Sunpaper, with its customary chicanery, is now touting the Hon. Daniel Baker as the original Billy Sunday man. I have only the highest veneration for the Hon. Mr. Baker, but if he lends his countenance to this deception I shall be under the necessity of sending my seconds to him. As a matter of fact, the original Billy Sunday man in Baltimore is the present subscriber, and the first suggestion that the rev. gent. be brought here was made in this place on July 2, 1913. I quote:

All that we need in Baltimore to make the whole population as uncompromisingly virtuous as Dr. Goldsborough, Dr. Donald R. Hooker, the Hon. Young Cochran and the Hon. Eugene Levering is a six-weeks orgy of remorse and repentance under the auspices of the Rev. Dr. Billy Sunday. Why is it that no one has yet thought to bring good Bill into our midst? He is the one whooper who out whoops all other whoopers. He is the unchallenged holder of the Richard K. Fox diamond belt for excoriating the Rum Demon. Baltimore is ripe for him. Baltimore cries for him.

This on July 2, 1913. Two days later--that is, on the 137th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence–I returned to the subject again. Thus:

Let us have the Rev. Dr. Billy Sunday, by all means! Baltimore is ripe for his pious whoop, his sharp staccato yell. Let him come and try his hand upon the Hon. William H. Anderson. * * * And there are others. I mention no names--as yet.

And on the same day I offered to subscribe $50 cash to a Billy Sunday fund, and guaranteed contributtons of $25 each from the Hon. Ed. Hirsch, the Hon. Young Cochran, Dr. Donald R. Hooker, the Hon. Eugene O’Dunne, LL. B., and the Hon. John F. Weyler. On July 8 the late William H. Anderson wrote to The Evening Sun approving my suggestion and offering to take charge of the fund--an offer that I duly appreciated but prudently declined. In this same letter, printed July 9, the Hon. Mr. Anderson said that the Anti-Salcon League, “approximately a week” before my article of July 2 was printed, had “tentatively decided” to bring Dr. Sunday here for a single lecture, but no one, of course, was deceived by that bald-faced attempt to get ahead of me, and the Hon. Mr. Anderson quickly abandoned it. As we all know, the Anti-Saloon League did not bring Dr. Sunday here for a single lecture--and no intelligent man believes that it ever had any such intention.

During the month following I continued to recommend Dr. Sunday as a powerful spiritual scavenger, and to urge upon the moral element that ne be lured to our fair city. On July 10, for example, I thus depicted one of the probable usufructs of his whooping:

Imagine the scene when the Rev. Dr. Sunday pauses for wind and the Hon. Mr. Anderson goes galloping up the aisle and throws himself upon the pyramid of collection plates and ex- drunkards’ jugs, and admits with trembling voice his diabolical tempting of the pastors!

And so again on July 11, July 16 and many days following. This was long before the Ministerial Perunion had ever so much as mentioned Dr. Sunday. It was long, long before either the Rev. Dr. Don S. Colt or the Rev. Dr. DeWitt M. Benham had begun to count noses for him. I have good reason to believe, indeed, that many local pastors had never even heard of him until I beat a dishpan for him. Certainly the Hon. Daniel Baker was silent about him, and passed no plate for him. Wherefore and by reason of which, I set down these presents. It is no light honor to have suggested a revival that will save between 25,000 and 40,000 Baltimoreans from drunkards’ graves, and pack the churches that now stand so pathetically empty, and so give honest work to the clergymen who now devote themselves to vaudeville and peanut politics. No wonder I am jealous of it!

Portrait of a card now being distributed in all the Sunday-schools by the catchpolls of Dr. Hare:


Step up, gents, and drop your pennies into the basket! It costs money to give a show. Says the frank Dr. Hare, in the circular which goes with the card: “We can easily find the men, but the means is a more difficult problem.” A free trip to Columbus brings out plenty of enthusiastic recruits, but volunteers must be found to pay for the free trip. Incidentally, Dr. Hare promises a revision of the incandescent technique of the lamented Anderson. Says he:

If for any reason you may be displeased concerning the way the League has been operated [i. e., during the Anderson regime], we hope you will let us know. We know that we are very human and aare liable to make frequent mistakes, and we will gladly welcome any suggestion that will elable us to set ourselves right or add to the efficiency of our movement.

Suggestion to Dr. Hare: Don’t bother about mistakes! Give ’em a good show! If Anderson erred, it was in occasionally allowing a regard for the facts to temper his moral frenzy. In brief, he had a conscience, though perhaps an imperfect one, and it seriously hampered his holy war.

Remark in this place a week or two ago:

No actor has ever written anything actually intelligent ahout Shakespeare, or even about acting. Of all the professions open to males, acting is the only one whose practitioners have never contributed anything of value to its theory.

Bitter reply of the estimable Waco Times-Herald of March 29:

Wasn’t Mr. Shakeapeare both actor and author, and also property man and advance agent?

True enough. But was he a competent Shakespearean critic? If so, how did he come to write such rubbish as “Cymbeline” eight years after he had written “Hamlet”?

Sat what you will, anyhow Baltimore is the only city where undertakers have to advertise and cemeteries go into the hands of receivers.--Boom Adv.