Judge — August 24, 1918

# Analysis This page is primarily a **cigarette advertisement** for Fatima brand, not political satire. The image depicts the U.S. Capitol building with crowds of visitors outside. The ad copy claims that Fatima cigarettes are sold at all 6 stands in the Capitol building, and that more Fatimas are sold daily at each stand than any other cigarette brand—supposedly demonstrating nation-wide preference among "big business and professional men from all sections of the United States." The satirical angle is subtle: by advertising cigarettes *inside* the Capitol building itself, the ad implies that even America's lawmakers and most important politicians smoke Fatimas, lending prestige through association with power and authority. This reflects early 20th-century advertising norms before tobacco regulation.

# Analysis This 1918 Judge cartoon uses racist caricatures and dialect to depict Black children in a narrative sequence. The six-panel comic follows children playing a game where they pretend to scare "Mammy" by disguising themselves as a ghost. The "joke" relies on period racist stereotypes: exaggerated facial features, African American Vernacular English ("Deed I would, honey"), and the premise that Black people are superstitious and fearful of ghosts. Panel 5's caption—"Dey ain't no sech thing as ghosts, chillin! Yo' musn't git scared!"—presents an older caregiver reassuring frightened children, reinforcing harmful stereotypes about Black communities. The satire targets no political issue; rather, it exemplifies the racist content mainstream American publications routinely published during this era.

# Explanation for Modern Readers This Walter de Maris cartoon from *Judge* magazine depicts a WWI-era military scene. Two soldiers in a dugout (trench shelter) are having a conversation. One soldier urges "Joe" to come into the dugout, warning he'll "get bifed" (hit/struck). Joe responds he'll wait until he can get "this guy in the bleachers that's throwin' pop bottles." The satire appears to reference the contrast between actual combat dangers and petty grievances. "Bleachers" suggests spectators or observers (possibly civilians or journalists watching the war). The joke mocks soldiers prioritizing minor annoyances—being hit with bottles by onlookers—over legitimate military threats. It's satirizing either public behavior during wartime or the absurdity of soldiers' concerns when facing real danger.

# "The Sad Case of Major Canby's Out-Basket" This is a humorous story by Neth Bert (illustrated by Albert Hencke) satirizing **wartime Washington bureaucracy during World War I**. The narrative mocks the absurdity of military procurement procedures through Major Canby, a near-sighted officer in the Ordnance Department tasked with evaluating sound distances. The joke centers on Canby's catastrophic loss of his spectacles—accidentally dropped into his office "Out-basket" (outgoing documents tray). His subsequent frantic search through filing rooms and the cascade of confusion this creates illustrates the ridiculousness of military red tape and inefficiency during wartime. The satire targets bloated government bureaucracy, the chaos of wartime administration, and how small mishaps create disproportionate institutional mayhem.

# Analysis This page satirizes a bureaucratic absurdity: a missing spectacle-case that traveled through numerous War Department offices during WWI without resolution. The **top cartoon** (by Sanford Tousey) depicts a recruitment officer asking a young man about his qualifications, with the candidate claiming an "excellent wristwatch"—implying that practical job skills matter less than having the right accessories. The **bottom cartoon** (by Gordon Grant) shows Corporal Snow, described as having "knowledge of French at zero, and limited talents in pantomime," desperately trying to determine from a French woman whether France possesses "a single watermelon." Together, these mock military incompetence and the disconnect between soldiers' actual capabilities and their assignments—a common WWI-era complaint about army organization and the absurd situations soldiers faced.

# Political Cartoon Analysis: "Could I Trouble You for a Dime?" The top illustration by John Coxacher depicts World War I soldiers in a European town. The caption's dialogue—one soldier remarking that Americans "ain't begun to feel the war yet" while a Scottish soldier complains about lacking pants for four years—contrasts American inexperience with European suffering during the war. The accompanying article by Cyril B. Egan satirizes how wartime has normalized astronomical government spending (billions and trillions in loans). The author describes becoming so accustomed to massive war expenditures that his regular monthly salary now seems contemptibly insignificant—a "drop of water." The satire critiques how inflation and war financing have distorted civilian perception of money's value, making ordinary wages feel worthless despite their actual necessity for survival.

# Analysis of Judge Magazine Page **"A Hymn of Hate"** is a humorous complaint poem by Howard Dietz mocking obsessive etiquette-consciousness. The speaker claims tolerance and calm temperament but repeatedly excepts one pet peeve: men who tilt their soup plates while eating. The satire targets stuffy Victorian social conventions—the poem exaggerates how trivial table manners become objects of intense moral judgment among the genteel classes. It's poking fun at people who pride themselves on sophistication while fixating on minor behaviors. **"How Was He to Know?"** by Mary Graham Bonner is a short comic story about a broker dining with his well-dressed daughter at a Hudson River restaurant. A business acquaintance sees them but doesn't approach, fearing to presume their relationship. The joke: in summer 1920s New York, a man and woman dining together could plausibly be assumed to be on a date rather than father and daughter—so the friend's polite distance ironically disappoints the daughter, who'd dressed up hoping to impress her father.

# "Hard Lines to a Poet" — Judge Magazine This page contains satirical commentary on poets and their financial struggles. The main article by Will H. Greenfield mocks poets as impractical dreamers who claim to write for posterity but actually desperately need money to survive. The humor lies in the contradiction: poets romanticize art while obsessing over payment—Greenfield lists ten slang terms for money, suggesting desperation. The two cartoon vignettes mock different types of pretension: the top cartoon shows a man quoting Shakespeare to avoid paying for advertising (suggesting dishonest use of culture), while the bottom cartoon depicts a professor with seven university degrees who learned nothing practical—the war taught him he can't even plant a potato. Both satirize educated elites as out-of-touch with real-world knowledge and survival.

# Analysis of Judge Magazine Page This page contains three satirical pieces: **"What Is the Name, Again?"** (top left) mocks business inefficiency. Parker J. Kindray complains that despite paying hundreds of dollars to laundries and city services, they consistently misspell his name on bills and statements—addressing him as "Porter L. Kindley" or "Pattie D. Kendall." The joke targets corporate bungling: businesses demand extensive paperwork and signatures yet remain incompetent at basic record-keeping. Kindray defends newspaper reporters against criticism, noting that private companies fumble names worse than the press does. **"Josh Billings, Jr., on 'Dogz'"** (right) parodies the 19th-century humorist Josh Billings through intentional phonetic misspelling ("littul," "shuld," "korrect"). It celebrates dogs as loyal, trustworthy companions superior to expensive toys, concluding that dog-lovers are inherently honest people—a rare virtue. **"Horse and Horse"** and **"Utility"** are brief, humorous observations about childhood discipline and domestic life, respectively. The page exemplifies Judge's early 20th-century satirical style: poking fun at institutional incompetence and celebrating folksy wisdom.

# Political Cartoon Analysis: "Shrapnel and Spuds" This Judge magazine page contains WWI-era anti-German satire. The main illustration depicts a bloated German figure surrounded by artillery shells and oversized potatoes—visual metaphors for Germany's military aggression and food shortages that plagued civilians during the war's final years. The accompanying essay by Benjamin De Casseres delivers pointed jabs at Germany: mocking German militarism as raising "murder from a fine art to a sport," referencing the 1914 burning of Louvain (a Belgian city destroyed by German forces), and suggesting Germans are culturally incapable of cosmopolitanism. The text praises French determination ("Clemenceau") while criticizing American leniency toward Germany. The three humorous asides below offer domestic American commentary on wartime conditions—quiet weddings due to scandal, women's economic expectations, and neighbors' nosiness—providing lighter relief from the heavy wartime messaging above.

# "A Bull Moose Runs Wild Through Yapp's Crossing" This is a chaotic street scene drawn by John Gueville showing a bull moose stampeding through a village crossroads, causing mayhem among pedestrians, animals, and buildings. The title references the "Bull Moose" Party—Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 Progressive Party splinter movement—suggesting the cartoon satirizes Roosevelt's political disruption as destructive chaos. The moose crashes through storefronts (including "Gordon Valland's Drug Store" and "Abbey Pearl"), scattering people, overturning carriages, and creating general pandemonium. The joke appears to equate Roosevelt's third-party campaign splitting Republican votes with an actual wild animal destroying a town. This reflects Judge magazine's satirical take on Roosevelt's controversial 1912 presidential bid against President Taft and Democrat Wilson.

# "The Double Cross" - Judge Magazine Story This is the opening of a domestic comedy story, not political satire. The narrative depicts a marital negotiation: Reginald Van Idyll refuses his wife Flossie's request for a summer trip, citing lack of funds. When he dismisses her, Flossie secretly applies theatrical makeup to simulate illness—creating dark circles and a haggard appearance—to convince him she needs the trip for health reasons. The "double cross" refers to Flossie's deception: she manufactures false symptoms to manipulate her husband into financing the trip he'd refused. The story satirizes early-20th-century marital dynamics and feminine cunning rather than political issues. The illustration shows the setup: Reginald (left, indifferent) and Flossie in bed (right, plotting). This reflects period attitudes about women's limited autonomy and the strategies they employed to obtain their desires.