Eugene V. (Eugene Valentine) Brewster.

What's what in America online

. (page 11 of 12)
Online LibraryEugene V. (Eugene Valentine) BrewsterWhat's what in America → online text (page 11 of 12)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

peoples "barbarians"; but these incidents were
only passing fancies, freaks and fashions soon to
make way for the approaching, persistent reign
of the beard. You say that Julian argued ar-
duously against the beard? Yes, but would you
take for a model a man whose whole body was
bearded, and who prided himself on his long
fingei-nails and on the inky blackness of his
hands? And don't forget that the reason Alex-
ander abolished beards in his army was one that
hardly fits your case, for was it not because the
enemy had a habit of using the beard as a handle,
much to the inconvenience — to say nothing of
the discomfort — of the victim?

The beard has had an eventful career, and has


always been the bone of contention between na-
tions, churches, politicians, kings, gods, and bar-
bers. As to the last, suffice it to say that beards
existed before barbers, and that barbers are now
as favorable to beards as they are unfavorable to
safety razors. As for the churches, they have
been alternately pro and con: Israel brought the
beard safely out of Egyptian bondage; the
Orientals cherished it as a sacred thing; the
Scriptures abound with examples of how it was
used to interpret pride, joy, sorrow, despon-
dency, etc., the Greek church was for beards,
and the Roman church against; the Popes of
Naples wore beards at various periods ; and now,
most of our popes, priests and preachers keep
their "chins new reaped." In Asia, wars have
been declared on alleged grievances concerning
shaving, and Nero offered some of the hairs of
his beard to Jupiter Capitolinus who could well
have bearded a dozen emperors from his own.
Herodotus has more to say of beards than of
belles, bibles and Belzebub, and the other poets
and historians have found inspiration in like
theme. In some times, beards denoted noble
birth and in others they were tokens of depravity
or of ostracism. The Roskolniki, a sect of schis-
matics, maintained that the divine image resided
in the beard, and for ages the beard was the out-


ward sign of a true man. In brief, the beard has
had a Titanic struggle for existence, first up,
then down, first on and then ofif. Just as it would
attain the zenith of its glory, some beardless king
would come along and dethrone it, as was the
case in Spain, for example, when Philip V's ten-
der chin refused to bear fruit, which calamity
soon changed the fashion among the Spanish
nobility. And, no sooner would the bald chin
be established in favor, than some ugly-faced
prince would come forward with an edict that
the elect must again display the manly beard, as
in France, when the young king's face was so
disfigured with scars that he found a beard nec-
essary to give him an appearance of respectabil-
ity, whereupon all his faithful subjects found
that they also had scars to conceal, much to the
dismay of the barbers.

Then, again, the beard was often attacked by
the assessors, as well as by the churches and fash-
ions; for did not Peter the Great levy a heavy
tax on all Russian beards, and did not Queen
Elizabeth, in spite of bearded Raleigh, impose
a tax of 3s. 4d. on all beards above a fortnight's
growth? These were unfair handicaps to the
beard, and greatly hampered its progress, but,
beards, like truth, crushed to earth will rise
again, and so always did the beard. For, observe


that in the reign of HenryVIII the lawyers wore
imposing beards, which became so fashionable
that the authorities at Lincoln's Inn made them
pay double common to sit at the great table; but
mark that this was before 1535 when Henry
raised his own crisp beard which afterwards be-
came so celebrated. Beginning with the 13th
century, when beards first came in fashion in
England, up to the present, the poor beard has
had a checkered career, but of late it has held
its own with commendable persistency, and now
all Europe is bearded, as it was in the begin-

If the beard was sometimes held in respect, as
in the Bastile, where an official was kept busy
shaving the captives, and as in our own prisons,
where the guests of the state are kept beardless,
do you say that occasionally it was held in con-
tempt and betokens laziness and rudeness? Yes,
but, when your entire list of digressions is ex-
posed, and your whole catalog of objections ex-
hausted, you will find that His Majesty the
Beard still waves triumphantly. It may be trod
under foot for a time, but, just as the shaven
beard will soon grow again, so will the beard
that has been legislated against by court, church
or fashion. In days of old, to touch the beard
rudely was to assail the dignity of its owner; and


when a man placed his hand upon his beard and
swore by it, he felt bounden by the most sacred
of oaths. We all have a certain reverence for
traditions, and those of the beard are still re-
spected, among the uncivilized as well as among
the civilized. Was it not Juan de Castro, the
Portuguese admiral, who borrowed a thousand
pistoles and pledged one of his whiskers, saying,
"All the gold in the world cannot equal this
natural ornament of my valor?" Persius asso-
ciated wisdom with the beard, and called
Socrates "Magister Barbatus" in commendation
of that gentleman's populous beard. And do not
the sculptors and painters usually represent
Jupiter, Hercules and Plato with the same
tokens of strength, fortitude, sturdiness and viril-
ity? Who would favor a "beardless youth" to
Numa Pimpolius — he of the magnificent flow-
ing beard? Who would prefer a Shakespeare,
a Longfellow, a Whitman, a Ruskin, a Charle-
magne, shorn of their hirsute adornments? Or
a Lincoln, Grant or Lee? But, of course, there
are beards and beards; we are not lost in admi-
ration at sight of such anomalies as those of John
Mayo ("John the Bearded"), or of Emperor
Frederick Barbarossa, nor even with that majes-
tic forest of hair which was attached to Queen
Mary's agent to Moscow, George Killingworth,


whose beard measured five feet two inches, and
which so pleased the grim Ivan the Terrible
that he actually laughed and played with it.
Coming down to the present, some of us will
prefer the silky, golden beard, such as adorns
the handsome countenance of Judge Wilkin, of
the Children's Court; some the splendid snow-
white beard of Hudson Maxim, or the shorter
and less white beard of our able and amiable Ed-
win Markham; or the mixed, philosophic beard
of General Vanderbilt; or, perchance, we prefer
the sandy, semi-gray beard of that profound
jurist, statesman, philosopher, — Judge Gaynor.
And then there is the erudite Bernard Shaw, and
our virtuous statesman Judge Hughes, and then
there was the sage and honorable keeper of the
public baths. Dr. Wm. H. Hale, and Oscar
Hammerstein, the impressario. Yes, the beard is
coming, so away with your safety razors, and sup-
ply your barber with shears. Away with your
alum, salves and powders, and look up the old
recipes for hair-restoring. The Roman youths
used household oils to coax the hairs to grow, but
the apothecaries of those days were not so cun-
ning as ours, and soon we may expect to see the
bill-boards and advertising pages filled with no-
tices of new preparations guaranteed to grow a
beard in a night, and directions how to care for.


dress, comb, clip and preserve it. No doubt we
shall soon become as careful of those sacred em-
blems of maturity and manhood, our whiskers,
as Sir Thomas Moore was of his, who, as he put
his head upon the block, carefully laid his beard
out of the way, and then cracked a joke. What
kind of a beard shall we wear? Consult the
artists and barbers, and trim it as you do your
hair — as best suits and becomes you. Charles
the First adopted the Vandyke beard, after the
artist of that name. Ruskin, and other philo-
sophers, wore their beards as nature intended,
trimming them about once every decade. Actors,
waiters, and doctors will probably wear no
beards, for obvious reasons, but they will all
wish they could, if they read James Ward's
"Defense of the Beard," in which eighteen ex-
cellent reasons are given, among which might
be mentioned, protection to throat and chest, and
Nature. And yet, on the other hand, there are
serious objections to the beard, among which is
the one made immortal by those classic lines of
Homer — or was it Lewis Carroll? — which run-
neth thus:

"There was once a man with a beard,
Who said, "It is just as I feared:

Two Owls and a Hen,

Four Larks and a Wren
Have all built their nests in my beard !"


There has been some scientific inquiry as to
why woman was made beardless, but the ques-
tion was never satisfactorily settled until the
poets became interested in the problem, and the
result was as follows:

"How wisely Nature, ordering all below,
Forbade a beard on woman's chin to grow;
For, how could she be shaved — whate'ver the skill —
Whose tongue would never let her chin be still."


IN 1890, a reformed gambler named John
Philip Quinn, wrote a book, "Fools of For-
tune," which I read with interest when it
first came out. Later I met this man and saw him
expose numerous tricks of gamblers. The book
comprehends a history of the vice in ancient
and modern times, and in both hemispheres,
and is an exposition of its alarming prevalence
and destructive effects, with an unreserved and
exhaustive disclosure of such frauds, tricks and
devices as are practised by professional gambler,
confidence man and bunko steerers; and the book
was given to the world with the hope that it
might extenuate the author's twenty-five years of
gaming and systematic deception of his fellow

I wish every boy and every public official
could read that book. Its pages are twice the
size of these, and there are no less than 640 of
them — a big and a valuable book. It would do
more good in the world than a great many so-



called religious books that I could mention; and,
if I am ever rich, I would like to have it re-
printed and sold for ten cents a copy so that
everybody could get one.

Alongside of this book in my library is an-
other, entitled, "What's the Odds," by Joe Ull-
man, the famous (or infamous) bookmaker.
What a contrast! This book tells many "inter-
esting" stories of the turf, of the pool-room and
of the card-room, and it tends to cast a luring
glamor around racing and all sorts of gaming.

By the side of this book in my library is an-
other, entitled "Gambling: or Fortuna, Her
Temple and Shrine. The True Philosophy and
Ethics of Gambling," by James Harold Romain,
which is an able defense of gambling. How
much harm these two last-mentioned books may
have done, no man may say. Certainly they
have done no good. If ever a book should be
suppressed by law, these two books should come

Mr. Romain says, "The keepers of gambling
resorts are denounced, as though they were re-
sponsible for the gambling propensity in man-
kind. Resorts for gambling do not cause the
passion. It is a tendency to which all men are
prone, more or less. The essential fact is the
existence of this passion. There can never be


great difficulty in obtaining the means for its

Now, it is quite true that gambling is a ten-
dency to which most people are prone, more or
less, but that is no argument for increasing the
temptation, nor for encouraging the vice. Men
are prone to steal, to drink, to be dishonest, to
lie, to cheat, to be immoral; but these tendencies
must be checked and suppressed, not encouraged.
Because some men will steal, should we license
them and furnish them with ways and means to
carry out their brutal instincts? Civilization is
striving to eliminate man's brute passions. Thou-
sands of institutions such as the law and the
church, the prisons and reformatories, the lib-
raries and the schools, are constantly combating
man's animal tendencies. Shall we stop all this
and let man's passions have full sway? Mr.
Romain says, yes. He says, "In the name of
liberty and equality, a brave battle has been
fought for individuality. Unjust and unwise in-
terference by the state has been ably resisted. It
is demanded that private judgment be released
from the embrace of authority. The truth is,
one man has no natural right to make laws for
another. True, he may repel another, when his
own rights are infringed, but he has no right to
govern him." Of course, this is anarchy. The


doctrine of "no laws" is an exploded theory. By
common consent, the world has come to an un-
derstanding that the majority of the people shall
make laws to govern the whole, and there is no
other way. What is detrimental to the commun-
ity must be suppressed, and the law is the best

While Fortuna may proudly enumerate her
great votaries in America, including Aaron
Burr, Edgar Allen Poe, William Wirt, Luther
Martin, Gouverneur Morris, Daniel Webster,
Henry Clay, General Hayne, Sam Houston, An-
drew Jackson, Generals Burnett, Sickles, Kear-
ney, Steedman, Hooker, Hurlbut, Sheridan, Kil-
patrick. Grant, George D. Prentiss, Sargeant S.
Prentiss, Albert Pike, A. P. Hill, Beauregard,
Early, Ben Hill, Robert Toombs, George H.
Pendleton, Thaddeus Stevens, Green of Mis-
souri, Herbert and Fitch of California, Jerry
McKibben, James A. Bayard, Benjamin F.
Wade, Broderick, John C. Fremont, Judge
Magowan, Charles Spencer, Fernando Wood
and his brother Benjamin, Colonel McClure,
Senator Wolcott, Senator Pettigrew, Senator
Farwell, Matthew Carpenter, Thomas Scott,
Cornelius Vanderbilt, Hutchinson of Chicago,
and Pierre Lorillard; think of the long list of
greater men who were not addicted to gambling.


This list is fairly complete, yet it is by no means
representative. If these men had the passion,
they no doubt felt sorry for it and they would
be the first to warn others of the vice. Some of
them were ruined by it. It is a folly to be
ashamed of, not to be proud of. It is a weakness,
and all great men have their weaknesses. Think
of the great men who were inveterate smokers
and drinkers; yet we would not hold them up as
examples for the young simply because they ac-
quired these bad habits. Are we to emulate the
faults of the great, or their virtues?

Of all the passions that have enslaved man-
kind, none can reckon so many victims as gam-
bling. In the wrecking of homes, in the destroy-
ing of character, in the encouragement of dis-
honesty, in the dissolving of fortunes, gambling
has only one rival — drink. The two are brothers.
They walk hand in hand. One seldom exists
without the other. If drink comes first, gam-
bling follows shortly; if gambling gets hold of
its victim first, drink soon joins his brother. And
with these two terrible, fascinating, insidious
habits firmly entrenched in a man's system, all
the other vices are invited in to keep the others
company. Smoking, a lesser evil, usually ac-
companies the rest, in fact usually comes first;
but it is hardly to be classed as a vice, since it in


itself has no immoral effects, and is simply a
bad and an expensive habit, although it is one
that many enjoy without harm or danger, even
with profit. Gambling appeals to a latent in-
stinct, and hence is all the more alluring. It is
a disease that, when it once gets hold, seldom
lets go. The victim may shake it off, for a time,
but it will surely show its fangs again, and it will
require a struggle and many of them, through-
out life, to conquer it. It will crop out in divers
ways and its influence will be felt in all trans-
actions. True, all life and business is a gamble,
in one sense — that is, a chance, but that is no
reason why we should make gambling King.
Our efforts should be directed to dethroning it,
not to crowning it.

If you have a boy growing up, remember that
he has a latent instinct to gamble. Remember
that unless you show him the dangers of the vice,
he will surely get the fever. It is just as sure as
it is that he will be tempted to steal and to lie.
You will observe him shooting marbles for gain.
Then, craps. Then he will be playing cards for
money. Then he will get interested in the penny-
slot devices that are to be found in the cigar and
candy stores. He will keep a sharp lookout for
prize packages. He will take a chance in every
lottery that he hears of, including those that are


usually conducted in church fairs. Next, he will
hear of faro, roulette and other games of chance,
and soon he will find his way into a regular gam-
bling den. He will probably lose, the first time,
and then he will save up, and go again to recover
his losses. If he loses again he will have all the
more reason to go again, to get square. If he
should win the first time, he will get the fever
anyway, and he will at once see visions of an
easy fortune ahead. Either way, he will stick
to it, and to stick to it means ruin. He will need
more money than you will give him, and he will
be tempted to get money by dishonest means. If
he does not steal, he will perhaps take something
from the house and sell it in order to get money
with which to gamble. If he cannot get that
something in your home, he may be tempted to
get it from some other home. He will sell his
toys. He will go without shoes and spend the
money at gambling. If he cannot get money, he
will run away and earn it. He will forget all
your teachings and do anything to get money.
And, when once he gets into one of those gilded
palaces of the devil, where big stakes are played
for, where everything is bright, elegant and al-
luring, where one man is seen to make a fortune
in a night, which sometimes happens, and where
sumptuous tables are spread with all the luxuries


and dainties of the season for the delight of the
patrons, where wine and cigars are freely given
to both winner and loser — then bid goodbye to
your boy, for he is lost. The chances are that he
will never get over it. The fascination will be
too much for him. He will surely go again.
Win or lose, he will look forward to the day
when he can try his luck with the great Goddess
of Chance. The yawning jaws of the tiger are
ever open for fresh victims such as he, and if he
gives them a chance they will inevitably close
down on him. If he loses at first, he will begin
to study "systems" to beat the game. He will
spend sleepless nights studying how to win out.
If he finds that, with all his studying, he
still cannot retrieve his losses, he will try other
forms of gambling, such as horse racing, but all
with the same result. He is bound to lose in the
end. But, the strange thing is, that you cannot
make him believe this. Every man seems to
have an inborn notion that he is different from
everybody else; that he is, by some freak of
nature, a marked man to win; that if he keeps it
up long enough luck must change; that he above
all others has been picked out by Dame Fortune
to win; that it is only a question of time when
luck will again smile upon him. So, he keeps
it up, chasing the will o' the whisp, following


the rainbow to find the proverbial pots of gold
that are said to lie at the other end. History
proves all this. The road to ruin is straight and
clear. It is easy to follow. Walking is good. It
is well lighted. The mirage of Fortune looms
up big at the other end which seems just a little
farther on. He may get weary and discouraged,
at times, but Hope and Promise beckon him on.
He sees his possessions vanishing, as he plods on,
he sees his reputation and character leaving him,
but he believes that these can easily be restored
when he arrives at his destination. But he never
arrives. He falls by the wayside. He dies,
mourned by few, shunned by many, discouraged,
desolate, homeless, friendless, forsaken — a
worthless wreck.

Among the hundreds of thousands of gam-
blers, you can count the few prosperous ones on
your fingers. Whether it be stock-market gam-
blers, race track gamblers, card gamblers, or
what-not, the universal law is that they all must
lose in the end. Every once in a while you read
of some famous once-rich gambler who has just
died poor and forsaken, fortune gone. The few
successful ones are successful only for a short
time. And the chances of your boy being one of
the successful ones is about equal to his chances
of becoming the king of England. The odds


are all against it. In playing against the dealer,
or bookmaker, or "house," the percentage is
large against him. If by chance he should win,
there are two chances to one that the gambler
will get it all back and more too, at the next sit-
ting. People say, "I will try it once more, and
I am sure to win this time, and if I do I will
quit the game forever." But the forever never
comes. If they win, they will soon come to an
understanding with themselves that they will try
it just once more, to win just a little more, then
stop. If they lose, they soon agree with them-
selves that they will try it just once more to get
back what they lost. In either case they are
bound to get back to the gaming table, and the
gamblers all know this. Hence, when the pro-
fessional gambler sees a winner leave his place,
he does not frown; he only smiles, because he
knows that the winner will soon be back to drop
his winnings plus a little more.

And what are we to do with this common
enemy of mankind? Are we to sit down and
sigh, and say, "Well, people will gamble any-
way, and if they are fools enough to throw away
their money that way, let them do it" ; or are we
to bend our energies to suppress it? Are we to
allow gambling houses to exist in our midst, thus
inviting our young men to become victims? Are


we to allow lotteries and petty gambling devices
everywhere as we do now? Are our churches to
encourage the vice at their fairs in order to make
money to redeem the world? No, we must stamp
it out wherever we find it.

TVedding Bells

Wedlock, indeed, hath oft compared been
To public feasts, where meet a public rout,
Where they that are without would fain go in.
And they that are within would fain go out.

Sir John Davies.

LET us listen, for a moment, to the merry
J jingle of the wedding bells, as they echo
through the corridors of the Hall of
Time. What is a wedding, and a marriage, and
why? What object was sought, in the beginning,
when custom demanded a marriage ceremony
before cohabitation? Why has that ancient cus-
tom followed man to every far corner of the
globe, and why do all peoples resent any efifort
to destroy that custom? Why so many different
forms of ceremony, what do they mean, and why
do they differ so?

Bolingbroke says that marriage was instituted
because it was necessary that parents should
know their own respective offspring; and that,
as the mother can have no doubt that she is the
mother, so a man should have all the assurance
possible that he is the father: hence the marriage



contract, and the various moral and civil rights,
duties and obligations which follow as corol-

Monogamy was the original law of marriage,
but in Genesis we are told that Lamech took
unto himself two wives. The Jews, in common
with other Oriental peoples, married when they
were very young, but the Talmudists forbade
marriage by a male under thirteen years and a
day. There was not much ceremony, in the early
days, except the removal of the bride from her
father's house to that of the bridegroom, called
"taking a wife," and in primative ages this was
done by seizure and force. The only "cere-
mony" took place on the preceding day, when
the marriage had been agreed upon in advance,
and consisted of a formal elaborate bath by the
bride in the presence of her female companions.
In later times, marriage ceremonies gradually
became very elaborate, and have generally re-
mained so and became more so ever since, in all
parts of the world. Abraham appears to have
the honor of having secured the first divorce in
history, for we are told he sent Hagar and her
child away from him. In Deuteronomy XXIV,
it is stated that a man had the power to dispose
of a faithless wife by writing her bill of divorce-
ment, giving it into her hand and sending her out


of his house. When a man died, without issue,
his brother had first claim upon the widow, and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11

Online LibraryEugene V. (Eugene Valentine) BrewsterWhat's what in America → online text (page 11 of 12)