Life, 1909-06-10 · page 10 of 32
Life — June 10, 1909 — page 10: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This page contains two distinct items: **"Our Correspondence School for Husbands"** (top right): An advertisement for instructional courses claiming to teach husbands proper behavior through business and scientific principles. The text mockingly notes one customer still has his wife read the *Ladies' Home Journal* to him despite paying for the course—suggesting the school's ineffectiveness. **"Taft"** (center/left): Ellis O. Jones's political commentary comparing William Howard Taft unfavorably to Theodore Roosevelt. The piece suggests Taft is indecisive and ineffectual—a "feather duster" who merely stirs up dust rather than accomplishing Roosevelt's vigorous agenda. It questions whether Taft can adequately lead, ultimately suggesting faith in him requires "charity." The accompanying illustrations depict domestic scenes and appear to support these satirical critiques.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
Our Correspondence School for Husbands Courses of instruction covering all conditions that may arise. Take our trial three weeks’ course and be con- tinced. Terms reasonable, Send for Prospectus, including one thousand testi- monials, All correspondence confiden- tal. W should like to make it clear to our patrons that we cannot per- form miracles. This institution is founded on business and scientific prin- ciples. All we claim is that by care- fully following our courses we can make old husbands young, and put young hus- bands where they belong—in charge of their own homes. We don’t undertake to perform the impossible. One of our customers who lives in Brooklyn writes to us, for example, that his wife still reads the Ladies’ Home Journal aloud to him, although he has been paying us good money for over a month. ¥ e i kly th: ve don’ WELCOME HOME! We tell him frankly that we don't Taft LY a Democrat would deny the obvious fact that Taft is a big man in some ways. Only a Republican would claim that he is big in all ways, and even the Republican's opinion would be for public consumption only. While waiting, simply waiting, we have discussed such esoteric problems as whether Taft would follow Roosevelt's policies, and, if so, what those policies were It commences to look as if he would. Roosevelt came in like a new broom and went out like a feather duster which merely stirs up the dust and allows it to settle back about as before. That is, in his carly messages, he told vigorously of things that ought to be done, and we all cheered; but, before we could get to the things mentioned, Roosevelt had gone elsewhere. So, Taft, though more sluggishly. He filled us with cheer in his advocacy of the income tax. How long he had turned this subject over in his sub and super-consciousness, we do not know, but we accredit him with a judicial temperament. But, lo and behold, a brief fortnight or two pass, and the in- come tax is no longer an issue. It is at this point that the resemblance to Roosevelt ceases. Taft may have meant that he would follow Roosevelt's policies only a few minutes. It is too early to generalize broadly. The question is: Is Taft small enough physically, big enough morally and agile enough mentally, to rise above a smile, an after-dinner speech, a pirate environment and an undue respect for the musty pages of Blackstone? In answer, we can only say that faith is at a discount, hope is still fairly strong, and, while awaiting developments, let us cover him with a mantle of charity. Ellis O. Jones. HE fight between the vacuum cleaners and the old-fash- ioned carpet sweeper is raising quite a cloud of dust. “WuRkY, BOYS! DINNER 1S READY! ** comicbooks.com