The Washburn times. [volume], February 06, 1919, Image 2

About The Washburn times. [volume] (Washburn, Wis.) 1896-1976

Image provided by: Wisconsin Historical Society

                
UNITED STATES WILL NOW TRY
EXPERIMENT OF PROHIBITION
Astonishing Action of an Individualistic People With a Strong Sense
of Personal Liberty Is Brought About by Lessons of the Great
War-Additional Legislation Planned to Enforce New
Law—Will “Wets” Contest?—Ratification Details.
The United States of America has
entered upon the tremendous social ex
periment of national prohibition of
the manufacture, sale and use of alco
holic drinks. There will be abundant
time to give the experiment a fair test
since the prohibition is by constitu
tional amendment. To all appearances
this mandate by the American people
against the use of alcohol is intended
to be absolute and final. We have
written it into organic law —into mag
na charta —in the form of the eight
eenth amendment to the Constitution
of the United States.
The experiment is a tremendous de
parture from previous tendencies of
the American people. We are an Indi
vidualistic people, with a strong sense
of personal liberty. Yet here we have
set out to regulate personal habit, not
by statute, but by constitutional
amendment.
And the manner of the passing of
this constitutional amendment is quite
as remarkable as the amendment itself.
Action on the seventeen previous
amendments to the Constitution has
taken between nine months and forty
three months, an average of about two
years. The resolution providing for
this eighteenth amendment was passed
by congress December 17, 1917. On
January 16, 1919, its ratification by
the states is accomplished.
What has brought about this ratifi
cation so quickly? Obviously the Na
tional Prohibition party has had prac
tically nothing to do with its accom
plishment. The answer evidently is
that the war has brought it about.
Prohibition is both an economic ques
tion and a moral question. The war
set the American people to looking at
prohibition from both viewpoints. We
got accustomed to the thought that
grain was better eaten as food than
swallowed as liquor, inasmuch as we
were told that food would win the
Map Showing in White First 36 States Ratifying Eighteenth Amendment.
war. We saw what the enforced so
briety of military service did physical
ly, mentally and morally for young
men who had indulged in liquor in
peace times.
Some of our allies got into the war
in a hurry because they had to —Bel-
gium and France to save their lives,
Great Britain to save its national hon
or. America took its time —a long time
—and gradually worked itself up to
the determination to fight. Doubtless
much consideration of prohibition was
a part of this slow process. So that
when the opportunity came the states
of the Union went over the top just
about as the American marines and
doughboys did in the Argonne.
Text of Amendment.
Following is the full text of the pro
hibition amendment on which state
legislatures are voting:
JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTI
TUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Resolved by the senate and house
of representatives of the United
States of America, in congress assem
bled, two-thirds of each house concur
ring therein, that the following amend
ment to the Constitution be, and here
by is, proposed to the states to be
come valid as a part of the Constitu
tion when ratified by the legislatures
of the several states as provided by
the Constitution:
Section I—After one year from the
ratification of this article the manu
facture, sale or transportation of in
toxicating liquors witnin, the impor
tation thereof into, or the exportation
thereof from the United States and
all territory subject to the jurisdiction
thereof for beverage purposes is heve
by prohibited.
Section 2 —The congress and the
several states have concurrent pow
er to enforce this article by appropri
ate legislation.
Section 3—This article shall be In
operative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Con
stitution by the legislatures of the sev
eral states as provided in the Consti
tution within seven years from the
date of the submission hereof to the
states by the congress.
CHAMP CLARK, speaker of the
house of representatives.
THOMAS MARSHALL, vice pres-
CLEAR VERDICT OF MAJORITY
Country's Decision to Abolish Liquor
Is Thus Summed \Jp by Prom
inent Journal.
Ten years ago, despite the already
notable successes won by the prohibi
tion movement up to that time, few
impartial observers would have ven
tured to predict the result which the
United States contemplates today. The
victory of the advocates of nation
wide prohibition is little short of amaz
ident of the United States and pres
ident of the senate.
I certify that this joint resolution
originated in the senate.
JAMES M. BAKER, secretary.
The amendment was passed by the
senate on August 1, 1917, and passed
by the house on December 17 of the
same year. It was passed by the sen
ate with the house amendments on
December 18. The vote in the sen
ate was 65 to 20 and in the house'
282 to 128.
Ratification by the States.
The next step was ratification of
this amendment by the states through
their legislatures. This called for af
firmative action by thirty-six states
within seven years. IVftssissippi was
the first state to ratify, both senate
and house taking action January 8,
1918. Three* other Southern states
followed in January—Virginia, Ken
tucky, South Carolina. Then came
North Dakota. Other states followed
in the order named, Nebraska being
the thirty-sixth and completing th 6
ratification.
Maryland. West Virginia.
Montana. California.
Texas. Washington.
Delaware. Indiana,
South Dakota. Arkansas.
Massachusetts. Illinois.
Arizona. North Carolina.
Georgia, Kansas.
Louisiana. Alabama.
Florida. lowa.
Michigan. Colorado.
Ohio. Oregon.
Oklahoma. New Hampshire.
Idaho. Utah.
Tennessee. Nebraska.
Maine.
While the amendment under its pro
visions does not become effective un
til one year from the date of its rati
fication, it seems likely that the coun
try will become permanently dry July
1 next. This is the date on which the
special war-time prohibition recently
enacted by congress goes into effect.
That law prevents the manufacture
and sale of intoxicants for beverage
purposes and remains ip force until
the demobilization of the nation’s war
armies is completed. Doubtless that
emergency war-time measure will be
effective over the several months that
will elapse after July 1 until the con
stitutional bone dry act, now adopted,
becomes effective.
Additional Dry’Legislation.
During .the year following ratifica
tion congress and the several states
will be called upon to pass legislation
to enforce the amendment and to pro
vide penalties for violations. It is
probable a large force of agents un
der the direction of the commissioner
of internal revenue will have to be ap
pointed to enforce the law*. Each state
will have to provide machinery for
the enforcement of the law in addi
tion to the machinery provided by the
federal government.
It is likely this additional legislation
will be pushed through as fast as the
drys can push it. In some parts of
the country at least they purpose to
take full advantage of their victory.
For example, in Illinois a forecast
of the Anti-Saloon league is this: In
addition to the “search and seizure
act” an act rigidly restricting the han
dling of liquor for medicinal, manu
facturing, sacramental and scientific
purposes; legislation covering doctors’
prescriptions, which must be issued
by a bona fide physician in writing,
dated, diagnosing the illness and the
purpose of its use; all railroad rec
ords of liquor shipments must be
kept; drastic legislation regulating
sale by druggists, with heavy penalty
for violation.
The drys presumably will not con
fine their efforts to enforcing the law.
They will doubtless take the question
into politics of all kinds and make it
an issue. They announce, for instance,
in Chicago that they will ask all can
didates for mayor to declare them
selves on the strict enforcement of
dry legislation. They will make it an
issue in the spring campaign and will
oppose apy aldermanic candidate who
does not toe the mark.
Will the Wets Contest?
Will the wets contest the legality of
the whole proceeding from the start?
ing. But nothing is more eloquent,
more conclusive, than an accomplished
fact, especially when the process of
accomplishment is morally so free
from objection as is the democratic
process of legal agitation, discussion,
voting and legislation.
At any time in the past decade many
a thoughtful, public-spirited citizen
must have said ;o himself something
like this: “If I were a benevolent
despot I should deem it my duty and
prerogative to prohibit the manufac
ture, sale and consumption of intoxi-
They may. January 14 in San Fran
cisco a court order was secured tem
porarily restraining Gov. William D.
Stephens from signing the ratification
of the amendment. It was indicated
that similar action might be taken in
certain other states. It was said at
the office of the California Grape
Growers’ association that such action
is possible in 12 other states. The
states, according to the association,
are: Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Ne
vada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, Missouri and Ne
braska.
In these states, it was said, all legis
lative actions can be, under the law,
referred to the people, and that in
many of them the people have 60 days
in which to take a referendum.
Anti-Saloon League.
The dry side of this legal proposi
tion is thus set forth by the Anti-Sa
loon league:
“Article V of the federal Constitu
tion provides that the legislature or
a state convention is the only body
which can ratify an amendment to the
Constitution. Congress is given the
power to say which one shall have the
authority. Congress had chosen the
state legislatures as the bodies to rati
fy the federal prohibition amendment.
A state referendum therefore would
be illegal and void.”
The Anti-Saloon League of America
has probably had more to. do with
bringing about prohibition than any
other one agency. It was founded in
1895 and is nonpartisan and nonsec
tarian. Its purpose is the extermina
tion of the beverage liquor traffic. It
is a coalition of the Anji-Saloon
League of the District of Columbia,
the Anti-Saloon League of Ohio and 45
other national, state and local tem
perance bodies. It has branches in
all states. It is expected to have an
active part in providing legislation for
the enforcement of prohibition under
the eighteenth amendment.
It is possible that the wets may also
attack the legality of the action of
congress. By some the view is held
that the amendment was not properly
submitted to the states by congress;
that it was adopted by two-thirds of a
quorum present and voting, whereas
according to the Constitution it should
have been adopted by two-thirds of all
members elected. If the resolution
submitting the amendment were to be
declared unconstitutional it would lead
to much questioning, for virtually all
of the amendments to the Constitution
have been adopted by a two-thirds
vote of the members present rather
than a two-thirds vote of all members
elected to congress.
Amendments of the Past.
The first national prohibition
amendment was proposed by Senator
H. W. Blair of New Hampshire as
early as 1876. It provided for the
prohibition of the manufacture, sale,
importation and exportation of spirit
ous distilled liquor for beverage pur
poses. He introduced such a bill nine
times between 1876 and 1896; in 1886
he changed it to include all alcoholic
liquors.
Senator John D. Works of Califor
nia introduced into the senate in 1914
a bill providing for the prohibition of
! spiritous liquors, excluding wines and
i beers. It received no support from
j the national prohibition advocates.
December 19, Congressman
Hobson of Alabama introduced the
famous “Hobson resolution.” The
original resolution placed the enforce
ment of the law in the hands of the
national government, but it was so
amended as to divide the responsibil
ity between the state and federal gov
ernments, in order to secure the sup
port of certain advocates of “states’
rights.” The original resolution was
amended eight times by Hobson him
self and was finally voted on Decem
ber 22, 1914, receiving 197 votes, 258
being necessary to carry through the
house. It never came to a vote in
the senate.
When Does Prohibition Prohibit?
Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas,
author of the amendment, holds that
national prohibition will go into effect
j ippi
lit
• \
Senator Morris Sheppard.
January 16, 1920, certification and an
nouncement of ratification being merely
a matter of form. It is needless to say
that the wets do not accept this view
and that effort to delay the formal
proceedings will be made, prelimi
nary to contesting the legality of the
ratification.
At any rate, it is formally an
nounced that such a contest will be
made. It is likely that the wets rely
more on the referendum proposition
than on the question of votes.
cating beverages. Drink is the cause
of much misery, vice and crime, and
even the most temperate user of alco
holic liquors, w*ho sees no personal
reaspn for prohibition, should be will
ing to subordinate his comfort and
pleasure to the welfare of the com
munity. If prohibition means a ma
terial decrease in crime, semi-criminal
vice, pauperism and destitution, then
we should all acquiesce in that policy
as a lesser evil, if not an absolute
good."
The United States Is a great and
THE WASHBURN TIMES, WASHBURN, WIS.
FOUNDED HALF
A CENTURY AGO
4 /
National Prohibition Party Organ
ized in Chicago by 500 .
Delegates.
EARLY STANDARD BEARERS
Eighteenth Amendment Has Never
Been Favored by Leaders Because
of Odds of 10 to 1 Against
Its Passage.
The National Prohibition party is
just fifty years old, its semi-centennial
falling on September 1, 1919. It was
born in Farwell hall, Chicago. The
convention numbered about 500 per
sons from 19 states.
The formation of the party was
probably ftyst discussed in public at
a Pennsylvania state temperance con
vention in 1867. Temperance leaders
had failed to get much consideration
from the Republican and Democratic
parties and were feeling the need of
independent action. The Good Tem-
James Black.
plars, an order of total abstainers or
ganized in 1851 at Utica, N. Y., were
also working to this end.
The call for the Chicago convention
originated May 29, 1869, in the grand
lodge of the Good Templars at Oswe
go, N. Y., which appointed a committee
to convene a national gathering to
organize a political party favorable to
prohibition legislation. This commit
tee consisted of John Russell, Detroit,
Mich.; Daniel Wilkins, Bloomington,*
111.; J. A. Spencer, Cleveland, O.; John
N. Stearns, New York, and James
Black, Lancaster Pa. At this conven
tion the party was organized, a plat
form was adopted and a national com
mittee was appointed, with John Rus
sell chairman.
The first national nominating con
vention assembled in Columbus, 0., on
Washington’s birthday, 1872. It
named James Black for president and
John Russell for vice president. Black
was one of the founders of the Na
tional Temperance Society and Pub
lication house, an organizer of the fa
mous Ocean Grove (N. J.) Camp
Meeting association and a prominent
Good Templar. Upon his death in
1893 he left his “temperance library”
of 1,200 volumes to the National Tem
perance society. Russell, the “Father
of the Prohibition party,” was a Meth
odist minister and a leading Good
Templar. His newspaper, the Penin
sular Herald, was the first to advocate
the formation of a separate political
party for prohibition.
Notwithstanding the worthiness of
the cause and the candidates, the pub
lic support at thW election of 1872 was
not enthusiastic. The total of the
vo*es received by Black and Russell
was but 5,607.
In 1876 Green Clay Smith of Ken
tucky and Gideon T. Stewart of Ohio
were the candidates. They polled
9,737. votes. In 1880 Neal Dow of
Maine, with H. A. Thompson of Ohio
as running mate, appealed to the
country. General Dow was widely
known as the author of the Maine pro
hibition law, but he succeeded in get
ting only 10,366 votes.
Candidates and Their Vote.
The Prohibition convention of 1896
split the party over woman suffrage
and money. The “free silver” minor
ity formed a Liberal party, with Bent
ley of Nebraska and Southgate of
Illinois as its standard-bearers. They
polled about 13,000 votes.
The feature of the Prohibition cam
paign of 1900 was a tour of the coun
try by the candidates and a corps, of
speakers by special train. In 1912
the Prohibition convention renom
inated the candidates of 1908. The
candidates since 1884 and their vote
are as follows:
1888, Clinton B. Fisk, New Jersey,
and J. A. Brooks, Missouri, 249,945
votes.
1892, John Bidwell, California, and
J. B. Cranfill, Texas, 270,710 votes.
1896, Joshua Levering, Maryland,
and Hale Johnson, Illinois, 130,753
votes.
1900, John G. Woolley, Illinois, and
H. B. Metcalf, Rhode Island, 209,469
votes.
1904, S. C. Swallow, Pennsylvania,
and George B. Carroll, Texas, 258,205
votes.
1908, Eugene W. Chafin, Illinois, and
Aaron S. Watkins, Ohio, 253,231 votes.
heterogeneous democracy. It has no
benevolent despot and wants none. The
democracy has decided to give nation
wide prohibition a thorough trial. The
ratification of the “dry" amendment
cannot be attributed by fair-minded
opponents to prohibition to accident,
hasty judgment or minority coercion.
It is too manifestly spontaneous to ad
mit pf such Interpretation of the re
sult. True, there has been no actual
national plebiscite or referendum, for
our federal constitution provides no
such method of ascertaining public
1912, Eugene W. Chafln, Arizona,
and Aaron S. Watkins, Ohio, 208,923
votes.
1916, J. Frank Hanley, Indiana, and
Dr. Ira Landrith, Tennessee, 214,340
votes.
The National Prohibition party,
curiously enough, has been rather op
posed to prohibition by constitutional
amendment. In the last Year book
(1916) we read:
“Although the Prohibition party
may be said to be committed by plat
form declaration to the adoption of a
national prohibition amendment, when
placed in power, the program of the
party has never contemplated agita
tion for a nonpartisan amendment to
be enforced by administrations not fa
vorable to prohibition. . . • The
general opinion seems to favor admit
ting the desirability of the amendment
as the end to be accomplished, at the
same time emphasizing its impracti
cability as a method, and denying its
necessity as a condition precedent to
securing national prohibition. . • •
The odds are so overwhelmingly
against the ratification of an amend
ment that they cannot possibly be
overcome through any reasonable ex
penditure of time, money and effort so
long as the liquor traffic exists to fight
for its life.”
The National Prohibition party is
certainly right about the apparent
odds against the adoption by congress
of a constitutional amendment aid
its ratification by the states. There
have been 1,757 amendments to the
Constitution proposed and 18 of them
have been passed. Heffein lies the mar
vel of the ratification of the eighteenth,
amendment in about thirteen months.
It has been figured that the chances
against the passing of an amendment
are 10 to 1. The case is put thus:
The chances against ratification are
2 to 1 in the house of representatives,
and 2 to 1 in the senate, and, there
fore 4 to 1 in congress. That is:
Should the measure pass either house
by unanimous vote, the one-third op
position in the other house would
block it in congress as a whole; in
other words, the resolution must be
supported on the two chances in each
house, while if the opposition scores
on its one chance in either house, the
measure fails. The chances. in the
state legislatures are 6 to 1 against
the resolution; hence, in the congress
and the legislatures combined t-he
chances are 10 to 1 against passage.
In other words, the measure might
pass both houses of congress unani
mously, and be defeated as a whole by
the one chance in the states. It might
pass either house of congress and all
of the legislatures unanimously, and
be defeated by the one chance in the
other house of congress.
St. John Makes a Stir.
John P. St. John was the first Pro
hibition party candidate to make a
real stir in the political world. What
he did in the campaign of 1884 was
long remembered. St. John was born
in Indiana and in the Civil war was
lieutenant-colonel of the One Hundred
and Forty-third regiment, Illinois vol
unteers. He was twice elected gov
ernor of Kansas on the Republican
ticket and was defeated for re-elec
tion to this office ii*l&B2 b* anti-pro
hibition Republicans', who thought him
too warm a friend of the temperance
cause.
Frances E. Willard and a delega
tion of women presented an enormous
petition to the Republican national
convention, urging consideration for
the prohibition forces. The story of
that time was that the petition was
not only laid on the table but thrown
John P. St. John.
on the floor, where it was found the
next day, much the worse for wrear.
Anyway, Miss Willard took her
grievance to the Prohibition party.
The Prohibition party offered the
nomination for president to St. John,
with William Daniel of Maryland for
vice president. St. John accepted the
nomination. He was an effective
speaker and campaigner and he went
out after blood—and especially Re
publican blood. He carried the war
into New York, considered a “doubt
ful” state in the exciting struggle of
that campaign between James G.
Blaine and Grover Cleveland.
St. John jumped the Prohibition vote
from 10,366 votes to 150,626 votes.
What is more, he polled enough votes
in New York to defeat the “Plumed
Knight” in that state and, as it
turned out, in the nation. The feel
ing of the time is indicated by the
fact that St. John was burned in
effigy in more than 100 cities.
opinion; still, It would be unreason
able to maintain that the legislatures
that have been vying with one another
for the honor of precedence in ratifi
cation have been acting contrary to
the wishes and sentiments of the peo
ple or in obedience to threats or or
ders from unrepresentative, aggressive
minorities.
Prohibition ns a policy may or may
not be as wise and expedient as its
sincere and resolute champions assert.
Time will tell. But the people have
resolved to make the experiment un-
U. S. LED MOVE
FOR TEMPERANCE
Many Societies to Fight Alcohol
Organized Early in Nation’s
History.
WOMEN ACTIVE AS LEADERS
John B. Gough, Reformed 'Drunkard,
First Crusader to Win Fame
by Success at Home and
Abroad.
When the movement which has now
brought about prohibition began in the
United States it was called the “tem
perance movement” and the phrase
“temperance question” embraced all
the problems in connection with the
use and abuse of alcoholic drink. Tem
perance, of course, primarily means
moderation, while prohibition, as used
in this connection, means a form of
sumptuary legislation abolishing the
manufacture and sale of alcoholic li
quors. In the early days “temperance”
was loosely used; sometimes it meant
moderation and sometimes total absti
nence. Many of the first crusades were
against “spirits”—distilled liquors as
distinguished from wines and beer.
Early temperance pledges were often
framed to draw this distinction. How
ever, the word temperance as used in
the titles and constitutions of reform
organizations soon came to mean total
abstinence.
This temperance movement, which
shows signs of bringing about prohibi
tion in many parts of the world, be
gan in the United States. The tem
perance pledge was in existence before
1800. Yossibly the first temperance
society was organized by the farmers
of Litchfield county, Connecticut, in
1779. In 1808 a society was formed in
Saratoga county, New ¥ork; the 43
members were pledged not to drink
rum, gin, whisky, wine or distilled
spirits except by a physician’s adVice,
in illness or at public dinners, under'
penalty of 25 cents.
The Massachusetts Society for the
Suppression of Intemperance was or
ganized in 1813., The American Tem
perance society was founded in 1829.
Thereafter organizations of various
kinds came thick and fast, many of
them securing large memberships.
Among them were the Sons of Temper
ance of New York (1842), Order of
Rechabites (1835), Society of the
Washingtonians (1840) and Good Tem
plars (1851).
In 1873 began the Woman’s Tem
perance crusade in Ohio. Women held
prayer meetings in saloons in this
campaign against alcohol. This move
ment grew so strong that in 1874 in
Cleveland the National Woman’s
Christian Temperance union was form
ed. The same year Francis Murphy’s
Blue Ribbon Temperance mission at
tracted public attention.
John B. Gough.
Prohibition or temperance has
made, many men and women famous;
probably some of these foes of liquor
and the saloon will be remembered for
all time. Among the names familiar
to most Americans in this connection
are those of John B. Gough, Neal Dow,
Frances E. Willard and Carrie Nation.
All four made their mark in widely
differing ways and the personality of
each is interesting.
John B. Gough attracted public atten
tion first. He achieved world-wide
fame and furnishes a remarkable ex
ample of what in these days is called
a “come-back.” He was born in Sand
gate, England, in 1817, and died in
Frankford, Pa., in 1886.
A Quaker in Worcester, Mass., in
duced him to sign a total abstinence
pledge. This was the turning point in
his career. He set out to tramp New
England, lecturing on temperance at
75 cents a lecture. He delivered 386
lectures the first year—and found him
self locally famous. He mingled the
pathetic and humorous so successfully
and mode his lectures so entertaining
that thousands w r ho had no interest in
temperance went to hear him. For the
next 17 years he spoke only on temper
ance and addressed more than 5,000
audiences, making two long temper
ance campaigns in England. He had
the power over an audience that
comes from experience, purpose and
natural eloquence. Robert J. Ingersoll
at his best could sway an audience no
more completely than this reformed
bookbinder. Next Gough turned his
attention to general lecturing and
made a fortune. His books have been
translated into many languages.
der the most favorable legal conditions
—under a constitutional provision that
is proof against attack. To the ver
dict of the majority as rendered under
the existing law of the land all good
citizens will cheerfully submit. The
people rule In the United States, and
in the course of a rather short period
of time their will, expressed by the
legislatures of more than a necessary
number of states to make it effective,
has prevailed in this important mat
ter of prohibition.—Editorial in Chi
cago Daily News.
GIRLS!' LOTS OF,
BEAUTIFUL HAIR
A small bottle of “Danderine”
makes hair thick, glossy
and wavy.
Removes all dandruff, stops itch-
Jng scalp and falling
hair.
To be possessed of a head of heavy,
beautiful hair; soft, lustrous, fluffy,
wavy and free from dandruff is merely
a matter of using a little Danderine.
It ig easy and Inexpensive to have
nice, soft hair and lots of it. Just get a
small bottle of Knowlton’s Danderine
now—it costs but a few cents —all drug
stores recommend it —apply a little as
directed and within ten minutes there
will be an appearance of abundance,
freshness, flufflness and an incompara
ble gloss and lustre, and try as you
will you cannot find a trace of dandruff
or falling hair; but your real surprise
will be after about two weeks’ use,
when you will see new hair—fine and
downy at first—yes —but really new
hair —sprouting out all over your scalp
—Danderine is, we believe, the only
sure hair grower, destroyer of dan
druff and cure for itchy scalp, and it
never fails to stop falling hair at once.
If you want to prove how pretty and
soft your hair really is, moisten a cloth
with a little Danderine and carefully
draw it through your hair —taking one
small strand at a time. Your hair will
be soft, glossy and beautiful in just
a few moments —a delightful surprise
awaits everyone who tries this. Adv.
Those who dodge w r ork are apt to
be dodged by the reward.
y .
Cur# pimple#, headache, bad breath by taking
May Apple, Arne, Jalap rolled Into a tiny augar
pill called Doctor Plerce’a Pleasant Pelleta. Ad*.
NOT THE EXPECTED CAROLERS
Youngster Merely Mistook Dulcet
Voice of Domestic Animal for the
Music Looked For.
She had placed a lighted candle in
the window because, the instructions
said to do just that thing. A lighted
candle on Christmas eve would notify
the carolers that music was desired
and they wrould stop to sing. It was
all quite simple. So the candle burned
ever so brightly while the members of
the family were busffy engaged in in
specting Christmas presents and wait
ing for the community singers.
Finally the little boy began to play
on his toy piano and there was consid
erable noise in the house. Above the
din, however, there came a sound from
out of doors.
“Listen, mother,” one of the children
insisted, “make* baby be quiet. Don’t
you hear the Christmas carols?”
Suddenly all was silent —that Is, all
was silent with the exception of the
neighbor’s cat. Apparently it was sing
ing something in German. At any rate
the little boy went on playing his piano
and the carolers never did appear.
The Inferior Male.
“Hello, Dubwaite. What are you
doing slipping out your bock gate?”
“Just beating a strategic retreat. I
gave a friendly huckster at the front
door the high sign to keep Mrs. Dub*
w T aite engaged until I put a few blocks
between myself and home.” —Birming-
ham Age-Herald.
Save
Sugar
by eating
Grapefluts
as your
cereal dish
This standard
food needs no
added sweet
ening for it:
is rich in i*ts
own sugar,
developed
from wheat 1
and barley
by the special
Grape-Nufs
process of
cooking.
** There's a Reason*