a general proposition, is a good thing for a teacher.

To stick at one job too closely is to lose perspective.

I find that this view of the case that only single women shall be employed as school-teachers-is the idea of the demagogue and dates to a day that is passed.

Marriage being eminently in the line of nature, it is an error to place a penalty on it.

It is greatly to the advantage of any woman if she can stick right at her work after her marriage and earn her own living. This is the woman who becomes strong and capable. Also, it is better for her children. Occasionally, Fate throws a woman out into the world after her marriage and she is compelled to devise, invent, and decide as to her own career. It may be hard at the time, yet over the lapse of years we see that Destiny gives her a recompense.

She grows, she evolves, she becomes. These are the able, the strong, the efficient women. And sometimes the son of one of these is Themistocles.

So just why the public school system of America should put a ban on maternity and a penalty on love and marriage we cannot say, save for the tug of inertia that this thing has always been and "we never done it that way before."

Roosevelt on Equal Suffrage

IN

N a late number of The Outlook, Theodore Roosevelt explains how he is in favor of a thing to which he is opposed.

He begins by saying that be believes in woman suffrage, and he ends by saying that the time is not yet right for placing upon women this great responsibility.

He reiterates the old proposition that woman's place is the home. He repeats again and again the trite argument that man and woman are by nature different in strength and in temperament and that, therefore, their activities must and will always widely differ.

Worst of all, he disparages the women who are now taking an active part in an endeavor to bring about this great betterment. He intimates that the desire of these women is to destroy the home and bring about a latitude and license on the part of woman that will eventually destroy civilization.

Mr. Roosevelt sheds no new light on the problem.

So far, nobody has ever brought up a reason why women should not vote that is not equally applicable to that of men.

Woman's interest in good government is just as great and just as vital as is that of the male citizen. In fact, it is more so.

For the education of women and in order that they may be better companions of men, the right of expressing their political preferences should not be any longer withheld. This is the attitude of the entire thinking world.

Inertia has its pull, and every change has to be fought for.

Theodore Roosevelt is on the side of the many-headed who adhere to a policy to which the centuries have given approval. His dodging of the question by first declaring that he is in favor of it and then going on to give reasons, most of which are specious, why the betterment should not be brought about, puts the man in the light of an artful dodger.

And also, it gives him an opportunity to come over on the Lord's side when the mass of people show their approval for equal suffrage. He can then say, "What did I tell you? I was always in favor of it!"

Huxley says that truth, in its struggle for recognition, goes through three stages. First, we say that the matter is revolutionary, is opposed to the vital, and will destroy the home and civilization. Next, we say that it does not make any difference either one way or the other. Third, we say that we always believed in it.

Theodore Roosevelt is just getting ready to make the third and final statement. The man is a great politician.

How I Bumped the Judiciary

I

WAS down in Washington a few weeks ago, and took a street car from Georgetown to the Capitol.

The car was pretty well crowded when a stout gentleman, rather elderly, came in and wedged himself between me and a woman with a big market basket on her lap.

As the stout man seated himself, he gently turned his head to me and pleasantly said, "Neighbor, can you tell me the time of day?"

When strangers ask for the time there is a chance of your timepiece being snatched.

This man was too fat to run, and the car was crowded. No matter what happened, I could grab him.

So I took out my Ingersoll and told him that it was a quarter to 'leven.

He murmured thanks, and apologetically explained that he had left his watch at home.

Suddenly, it came over me with a thrill that the stout man was Chief Justice White of the Supreme Court of the United States. I would have continued the conversation, but I saw that he was preoccupied. His lips were moving, and he was sort of talking to himself and smiling. I guessed that he was formulating some kind of speech, an address, a decision of perhaps far-reaching importance. Not wishing to break in on a worldproblem, I sat silent.

The car stopped and several people got out. There was room on the other side of the aisle and I abandoned the Wool-Sack

other man an opportunity to render him a service. And when we do that, provided the man can accommodate us without positive loss to himself, we confer on him a benefit and a joy.

That is to say, it is a matter of fellowship, and fellowship is heaven.

And here as I write, I feel a joy void of pride that Chief Justice White of the Supreme Court of the United States not only once, but twice, asked me to perform for him a certain specific service, and that, fortunately, I was able to meet his request.

I think more of the man and always have, and always will, for this conversation, even. though two other men were honored in the same way in the course of a two-mile ride.

Emigration and Immigration

Ο

solving view of the man who dissolved the Standard Oil Company or didn't.

A man came in and sat down in the place next to the Chief Justice. And as this man settled himself, the Chief Justice leaned over and said, "Neighbor, can you tell me what time it is?" And he was politely informed. This man got out at the third block, and a colored man got in and sat down by the Chief Justice.

His Honor turned toward him and said, "Will you please give me the time of day?" The colored gent got out just as we reached the foot of Capitol Hill.

Chief Justice White stood up and held on to a strap. I did the same.

The car swung around the curve and we bumped each other for fair.

“Excuse me!” said I.

"It was my fault," said he.

Then he asked this question-"Would you mind giving me the time of day?" I consulted my watch and informed him that it was eight minutes to 'leven.

I have wondered since whether the Judge's solicitude about the time was because he cared, or was this his way of being sociable!

And I have since concluded that it was simply his way of being sociable and expressing his good will.

His mind was working, undoubtedly, on another theme, but at the same time the kindness in his nature manifested itself in this neighborly question. He gave the

Dictionary-a work that I cheerfully recommend for original thoughts-I find that the word "emigrant" refers to people going away; and "immigrant" applies to people coming in.

The tide of immigration is lower now than it has been for twenty-five years.

To be exact, the arrivals by steerage, in the year 1911, were 781,000 and the departures were 486,000.

"If this thing keeps on," says Commissioner William Williams, "soon more people will be going out of America than are coming in."

On being asked why this condition exists, Mr. Williams says that Canada and the Argentine Republic are taking thousands of families of a class that formerly came straight to the United States. Incidentally, the high cost of living in America has a deal to do with it.

Most of the aliens coming here now come from Mediterranean ports, whereas several years ago Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Norway, and Sweden sent us most of our immigrants.

America is no longer a pioneer country. We need workers, and there is work here for everybody that can work and will work, but the big inducements that a new country offers, whether founded on fact or fancy, are no longer here.

In order to win now in America you have to hustle. No gold is to be picked up in the streets and the fabulous fountains of

perpetual youth remain, as heretofore, in countries that have not been thoroughly exploited and explored.

H

Henry Labouchère

ENRY LABOUCHÈRE, late proprietor and editor of London Truth, was a unique character.

Labouchère was undoubtedly the most prominent, independent, single-handed political and social reformer in the world, and as far as I know, his newspaper was the only one of its kind.

It was unique in this, it made money from the very first number that was issued in 1876. It was a weekly, and had things to say. about society, politics, and events of any and every kind that were happening.

This man simply stated what he thought of things. Usually, he was very good natured, but there was apt to be a goodly dash of aqua-fortis in his ink.

Up to the year 1900, Henry Labouchère generally had from one to ten libel suits on hand. For years it was his proud boast that he was never mulcted for damages.

Occasionally, he made apologies and thus, in several instances, escaped punishment.

But his apologies were a kind that really aggravated the first offense, because he always managed, in his apology, to repeat the original statement.

Gladstone said that he would rather suffer from Labouchère's accusations than from his apologies.

Very few newspapers make any money on their sales. The money comes from advertising. I believe that when Labouchère's journal was first issued it sold at sixpence a copy. Finally, this price was reduced to threepence, or six cents. The paper probably cost one cent to produce.

Labouchère was a man of immense mental resources, interested in every living thing; and he got an education at his work and out of his work. Newspaper work is a great drill and if any man wants to find out all about anything, the recipe is for him to start in and write about it.

London Truth has had a vast number of imitators, but the original noise is what counts. Most of the imitators wrote themselves out and died a speedy financial death. But London Truth paid a profit of about a hundred thousand dollars a vear, and has for twenty-five years.

Parnell once remarked, "Certainly Henry Labouchère is our greatest satirist! Even the name he chose for his newspaper is ironical."

And Labouchère joined in the laugh that followed.

Labouchère's life was certainly a success in that he made money, achieved fame, and worked tremendously and always had enough troubles on hand to prevent introspection.

And if he did not know his faults it was not because his enemies did not point them out.

Labouchère was on very friendly terms with King Edward the Seventh.

Both had a goodly trace of the sporting proclivity. The King would sit back and laugh at everything that Mr. Labouchère said when they were together.

Labouchère was once asked this question by a woman with curiosity plus:

"When you dine with the King by what term do you address him?”

And Mr. Labouchère gravely replied, "Well, it is like this! When we first sit down to the table I address him as 'Your Majesty' and he calls me 'Mr. Labouchère.' But toward the end of the meal I always find myself calling him 'Ed,' and he pounds me on the back and addresses me as 'Labby."

IT

The Classic Training

T seems there has been a little strike on in Syracuse University; and the one particular girl that led the revolt has been expelled from the institution.

The whole matter is trivial, but the attitude of mind held by the dear girl who led the revolt is worthy of a passing paragraph.

It seems that this girl induced fifty other pupils to sign a round robin to the Chancellor, wherein a vigorous protest was made on the matter of eats.

The young lady expressed herself as being highly pleased with the educational and social features of the college. The one thing, however, that did not satisfy her was the matter of diet.

She could, of course, have changed her boarding place, but preferred something more spectacular, hence the round robin directed to Prexy Himself, with an extra copy put on the bulletin-board to insure proper publicity.

As for kicks on the gobbles and guzzles, this is nothing against the grub. Any cuisine is always under suspicion, and just as many protests occur, say, at the WaldorfAstoria as at Mamma Child's.

Usually, a protest concerning food is the fault of the individual. In order to enjoy food, you must have an appetite, and in order to have an appetite, you must have a digestion, and in order to have a digestion, you have to work out of doors a certain number of hours every day.

Also, it is well to have your mind engaged on some useful enterprise.

The dear young lady who led the strike at Syracuse, after her expulsion, declared, "I don't care anyway. I am at college just to pass away the time. Besides, college is a good place to meet nice folks. Also, it is a good place to improve your mind."

So here we get the point of view of one type of college student, who declares that college is a good place to pass away the time, to meet nice people, and, lastly, to improve your mind.

On the latter point, there might be room for argument.

But in any event, a great number of college students are sent to college simply because their parents do not want them around home, and hence they are there to pass the time. While Prexy, no doubt, often thinks. they are there to punish him for sins committed in a former incarnation.

What this per cent. is who are at college just to pass the time and meet nice folks, the late Robert T. Crane, of Chicago, endeavored to ascertain. After ten years' investigation, he gave it as his opinion that fifty per cent. of all students at what are called first class colleges, are there for social honors, to kill time, and with the hope somewhat dimly held, that improvement of the mind. will also follow as does night the day.

A Mutiny in Camp

STORY comes from London about a A military riot that occurred at Longmoor Camp. At Longmoor, there is a Mounted Infantry School connected with the Aldershot Division.

It seems that certain Scotchmen among the troopers were out on New Year's Eve. When a Scotchman goes out on New Year's Eve to have a good time, we know pretty well where he will fetch up. These men

carried out all the traditions of The High Street in Glasgow.

When they came in the next morning they were duly reproved and several of them were put in irons.

Others were made to carry tubs and shoulder brooms.

The Scotchmen rebelled, claiming their right to do as they pleased one day in the year. The officers refused to accept the round robin, but ordered the men punished.

Then it was that the whole division bombarded the officers' quarters with bricks, smashed every window, broke in the roof, and declared that if any one of them was to be punished all must be punished.

The assembly was sounded, and all the officers turned out to quell the disturbance. The mutineers refused to fall into line. Instead, they formed a hollow square around a big pile of bricks and requested the officers to come on. The officers drew their revolvers, but, of course, dared not shoot.

Then it was that a happy thought came to one of the officers-a captain-who is a noted boxer.

He got the men quiet long enough to challenge them to pick out any one man to fight him, and they would settle the matter in single contest.

This pleased the Scotchmen very much and they picked out their best man, formed a ring, and agreed to let the two fight it out, London rules to govern.

The men stripped and went into the ring. The officer was a little man and the man they put up against him was a big one. But the little man had science on his side. Also, "Thrice is he armed who hath his quarrel just."

He put it all over the big Sandy McGee, and in three minutes the seconds cried that their big man had had enough, and the soldiers stood ready to fall in line and obey orders.

A suggestion comes to us right here: Why wouldn't it be a good scheme for nations to settle their differences in this way?

Of course, fighting never settles which side is right, it merely settles which side is the stronger.

And all of the people in a nation never fight anyway. We only pick a few-and the fewer the better. This is an old-time method, going back to the days when David, a youth, called out Goliath and did him up with three small pebbles from the brook.