Judge — December 18, 1915 — page 4: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

D Fish ‘ IHE sea does not hold all the species ot fish, nor is the remainder confined to fresh waters. There are phenomenal speci- mens everywhere on dry land. ES Some of these are not dependent on a dry environment, however. They are perhaps amphibious. But they are sure-enough fish, whatever. The chief end of fish is the hook. And in order to be caught, fish must take a fancy to the bait on the hook. This is easily arranged. ‘Then the fishing’s fine! Small wonder that it should be the main diversion of the human family. Pis- catorial art or artifice is a sport that is hardly likely ever to go out of fashion. Methods may change, but the principle is fixed. The major factor is the bait. Its selection is properly governed by the occasion, the surroundings, and -the individual gills of the vertebrate. Con- sequently this group of considerations provides a stable subject of conversa- tion if not of thought. Nobody calls bait “bait,” of course. That would be awkward, unnecessary, and _ill- bred. It would eliminate the imagi- nation, without which anything and everything on earth may drag into all sorts of drab dulness. Conversely, shades of rose color may conceal the subtlest bait that ever was, or that ever was designed for any fish to be caught. This being the case, one is quite justified in calling it “sunrise,” or “luck,” or ‘“velvet,”’ or “double par”’—in truth, anything but ‘ And fish, as well as fishermen, by no means lacking in imagination. Knowledge has not been popularized as to the brains or the cerebration E T O R I of the Teleostei or the Selachians, but, what- ever may be said against higher anatomy and function, neither of these two fish families or others can be said to be without imagination. Were such calamity possible, much human as well as piscatorial enterprise would cease. Inequality would disappear, and we should be afflicted with a poise that the best philosophers tell us is baneful. Eugenics UGENICS is an inflated science based on the fact that blue-eyed parents are sure to have blue-eyed children—if they have any at all—and that brown-eyed parents A SOUND INVESTMENT A L S are not sure of anything. Brutally over- working this depressing bit of information as a lead, the loquacious foes of desultory mating have just about usurped the attention of dilettante up- lifters, and are now rapidly ex- tending their dominion over the programs of mothers’ clubs and parent-teacher associations. Mat- rimony that is anatomically and psychologically advisable has little charm, however, for the average complacent victim of Cupid’s frauds, and it begins to look as if eugenics is going to have to find its devotees among those who look upon matrimony from afar. No real live individual would have anything to do with mar- riage if he felt absolutely safe about it. Just the Same Woman in Spite of Being a Voter WOMAN there was and a voter too, in fact, the first woman who ever sat in a Democratic National Convention, and the other day her will was admitted to probate in Spokane, and so little had her voting changed her nature that she willed her property to her husband as long as he remained unmarried. And yet it is sturdily maintained by some that woman suffrage and polyg- amy can be counted on to go hand in hand. Stupendous fallacy, as shown by this eminent woman voter who refused to share her husband with another woman even after she was dead. If not after death, think you she would before? Never, even at the price of a vote. Keep a smile on your face, and every countenance you mect will seem like a looking-glas: t PEIN.