Life — May 10, 1906 — page 9: what you’re looking at

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

T° ‘THE PUBLISHERS OF LIF Dear Sir Even before the arrival of Lar rath inst., had been in doubt whether your recent assaults on the clergy as maintainers of the indissolubility of marriage were prompted by affection for matrimonial bonds of casy relaxation or by a dislike for a love of pricst-baiting My doubt arose from the circumstance at_no opponents other than clérgymen have been made the subjects of your ridi- cule. Why has not this ridicule extended to such advanced philosophers as Dr. Felix ler and his insistence th clericalism ai divorce is a violation of natural law? Why have you not displayed your modern wit against the teachings and sentiments of those time- honored Rome who, while the Roman Republic was dying of its own vices, bore emphatic testimony to pre mong the social sins of , whom, perhaps, you might show to have been unfortunate in having had no Lire to defend them ? Now it appears by the first page of your issue of the 12th inst. that you claim even the Roman Catholic Church to be hypocriti- cal in its opposition to divorce and remar- riage. So, since you have been imputing to the clergy principles which you do not credit and since clergy- men have been the sole objects of your attacks, my doubt as to the inspiration of these attacks is strengthened. Whatever may have prompted your at- tacks, this first page of your issue of the rath inst. is an exhibition of ignorant or wilful falsification of the doctrine and prac- tice of the Roman Catholic Church, such a falsification as cannot appear witty to any one not grossly uninformed on these sub- jects. I had hoped that your anticlericalism might have spent itself. But having re- ceived this issuc of the 12th inst., I must ask g Lire to my address. Of course, I do not wish to scription men of nce of divorce as chief their contemporari the clergy with possessing you to cease sen new my sub- Yours very truly, Chas. W. Sloane. Suaatt, N. J., April 16, 1906. DITOR OF LIF! Dear Stir: Thave taken much keen interest in the letters from readers raking Lire over the coals for editorials and cartoons touch- ing Lire’s views on missionaries, divorce and our present state of integrity of political character. I do not disapprove of any of it in the least and far from discontinuing my subscription will continue to purchase the paper. ‘There is nobility of character in mission- aries and also those who wish to shove their own religion, of which the American greed, grasp and throttle is the outward expression of its inner sinkinableness, down the throats of those who are satisfied with a very good religion of their own, and who are some- times leading better lives than us, even pagans as they are; divorce is necessary yet it docs not mean concubinage nor loose marriag , lastly, it is very needful that high position be analyzed and facts pre- sented, though they hurt. Live's fight with the Theatrical Trust, Haines and hot shots in political life wher- ever the target is seen, deserve credit and support, and when Lire throws a bomb into our back yard we will not holler “King’s Very truly yours, Frank Beckwith. Evaystox, Wvo., April 19, 1906. (© THE EDITOR OF LIFE Deak Sin: What hypocrites we are when we accept Grand Duke Boris and reject Gorky! A few years ago Boris disported himself among us, and a more dissolute wretch, according to reliable accounts, it would be difficult to imagine. Yet we wrote no cditorials against him and ejected him from no hotels. On the contrary, our prominent citizens felt honored at being invited to sit at the same banquet table with him. Exclusive welcomed him. And now, because the essence and soul of things is incomprehensible to us, we con- dema Gorky. Our newspapers denounce him and we apparently concur in their judg- ment. The conventional lic that a man and a woman cannot be truly formally bound by some religious ceremony or some sort of empty civil hocus-pocus is vely defended by our newspaper moral- ists, utterly regardless of the sham con- nected with the institution of matrimony in its present state Is not the essence of marriage freedom and mutuality of affection? More than this freedom and this mutuality no conyention- society married unless ality in any country can ever impart to any sex relation, and without these qualities no marriage is worthy of the name. Yours truly, ULC. Uthog. 1906, La SALLE, Itt. April 18, DITOR OF LIFE. Dear Sir: In view of the recent handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States, the necessity of a uniform divorce code is beyond question. Knowing your interest in the point at issue and your untiring energy in leading the American people to a proper appreciation of its true aspects, I hope that you will do all in your power to bring about the passage of a national law. Perhaps the most logical plan, considering the disfavor in which the Executive holds the Federal Courts, will be to put the question of divorce under the jurisdiction of the Department of Com- merce and Labor. Wishing you every success in your crusade and thanking you for your liberal attitude in relation to this, as well as all other questions, I remain, A Most Devoted Reader. Casmeince, Mass., April 18, 1906. decision An Example “DAPA, what is satire?” “Well, for example, when your mother asks me how much I’ve won at prayer-meeting.”” VIDDLE STYX. comicbooks.com