Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/429

 394

appropriate to place it on the steps, like the statue of Washington in Wall Street. But it seems a fulfilling of the scripture, "he that abaseth himself shall be exalted," and doubtless the spirit of the good Friend is regarding his exaltation with a contented and cherubic smile. It is quite remarkable how much allowance the law has made for Quakers, and might repay a special investigation. They seem to form an exception to Darwin's law of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. The law lets them affirm because they stand on the scriptural injunc tion, "swear not at all," and it lets them marry themselves after their own sweet will even in States that do not otherwise recognize common-law mar riages. We have sometimes wondered what the law would say if they had asserted a conscientious belief in bigamy or robbery, or anything else forbidden. No doubt most of our women-readers occasionally sigh for the prevalence of the she-Quaker gown, kerchief and close bonnet, which style is so becoming to everybody and entails so little trouble and heart burning.

Danc1ng. — It is but a step from poesy to dancing. It seems to this chair that the Supreme Court of Missouri does not put a correct estimate on dancing, when it holds that it is libellous to accuse an institu tion of learning, in print, of teaching the art of danc ing. This is what that learned Court has done in the case of St. James Military Academy v. Gaiser, 28 S. W. Rep. 851. It seems that a number of clergy men of Macon, Missouri, assembled themselves to gether and resolved that the academy in question, because it "fostered the practice of dancing, which is antagonistic to the teaching of our churches and homes," and " hurtful to the moral and spiritual wellbeing of all engaging in it," and because the academy obstinately refused to discontinue it, although there unto requested by said clergymen, was " harmful to the moral and religious interests of our community," and that they recommended "the members of our churches and all friends of religion and good morals that they absent themselves from and discourage and discountenance in every way all receptions and other gatherings at the academy as long as dancing is al lowed in the building." The Court holds that this publication constituted a cause of action for libel, but leave it to a jury to say whether it was justified on the ground that dancing was immoral. It seems to us that the charge is not libellous, because it does not accuse the academy of promoting anything immoral. Would it be libellous, for example, for the proprietors of the academy to publish that the churches pre sided over by these clergymen should be avoided, so long as the clergy thereof combed their hair bthind

their ears and sang through their noses? Or suppose the clergy had denounced the academicians for teach ing the lascivious angles of geometry, or unfolding the unholy mysteries of algebra, or encouraging the contemplation of the deleterious principles of geology, would that have been libellous? Is not the one charge as ridiculous and manifestly baseless as the other? To justify the court's decision it must be conceded that to accuse an academy of teaching, or permitting dancing has the natural tendency to bring it into odium, unpopularity, or contempt. This can hardly be true. The world has moved considerably since "The Waltz" was so vehemently denounced by the pious and saintly Lord Byron. It is now re called that David danced before the Lord, that Hatton danced himself into the Lord Chancellorship before Queen Elizabeth, and that dancing is taught at the government's expense, or at all events publicly favored, at West Point.

Broken-down An1mals. — Those of our profes sion who own broken-down horses or dogs will be glad to learn that in that finely endowed institution, the University of Pennsylvania, provision has been humanely made for such unfortunates. This we learn from an address at the late commencement of that university, by Horace Howard Furness, the admirable Shakespearian scholar, who conveys the information in the following words : — "We see a Veterinary Building, with its long row of pathetic hospital stalls — I say 'pathetic,' because in them stand the patient, disabled bread-winners of many and many a poor household, to which, by the best skill of this beneficent institution, they are restored, when possible, sound and ready for renewed gain-giving toil; behind this long low building we see the pretty, cottage-like Hospital with its piazzas and verandahs, where, for that most faith ful friend of man, the dog, every canine comfort is provided in his ailments, and where physic is gently administered, and not brutally thrown to him as Macbeth prescribes. (But what else could we expect from that wicked tyrant? Ah, what profound lessons Shakespeare teaches! In that tragedy he shows us that when once a man has entered on the downward path by murdering his king, he goes from bad to worse until at last he will not scruple to recommend that physic be thrown to dogs! We always administer it at the veterinary gently, with a spoon — and plenty of it.)" In our mind's eye we see our learned friend por trayed, like that other Shakespearian scholar, George Steevens, with his dog sitting on its haunches with a big collar around its neck, and we hear him exclaim with Richard, " A horse, a horse! my kingdom for a horse! " All the hack-horses in Philadelphia will probably volunteer to walk behind him to his last resting-place.