CHAPTER XXV.

CHAPTER XXV.Improved Social Conditions.Kissing prohibited in the twentieth century. The curbing of the tongue. The National punishment for wife beaters. The passing of the tramp. New methods of salutation. Vegetarians remain true to principle. Horse flesh as an article of food. Schools for training housekeepers. American hotels in 1999 still lead the world.Kissing as a fine art was on the wane in the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century the Japanese had long banished that custom as one dangerous to health and as a medium for communicating infectious diseases. In that remarkable and highly progressive country no kisses, or salutation with the lips, are exchanged between husband and wife, parent and son, brother and sister.The custom, without doubt, is an unwholesome one, yet one in vogue for soKissing Strictly Prohibited.many centuries, even in the days of the Romans, that it became a second nature. In the nineteenth century one might as well attempt to scale Mt.Rainierwith a ladder as to endeavor to convince the mother of a new born babe that kissing is a dangerous habit. The lover in his rapturous mode expresses in a kiss the acme of his devotion. It seems cruel to destroy idols before whomwe have bowed down and offered incense during a whole lifetime. Custom, tradition and education are hard task-masters. They cling to us through life like limpets to a rock.Kissing, however, never came under ban of the law in the twentieth century, but the practice was discontinued on purely hygienic grounds. The mode of salutation in 1999 that was regarded as being the most tender expression of love, consisted of a gentle patting of the cheek. The advanced reason of the age broke the barriers of custom in this case; lips were seldom allowed to touch lips. A pressure of the hand became ample compensation for the most ardent lovers, while the matchless language of the eyes left no room for doubt in a lover’s breast that his love was reciprocated.In the twentieth century men began to acknowledge the absolute folly of theThe Cursing Habit.cursing habit. If any excuse could ever be offered in palliation of this vicious habit it might be made in the case of a man whose mind was disturbed by angry passions. In an outburst of passion a slight pretext might be offered for the vigorous use of unwritten Anglo-Saxon. But the twentieth century very properly turned its face against the practice of verbal profanation. This reprehensible habit was made punishable, in every instance, by a heavy fine and imprisonment.In the nineteenth century laws against profanity already existed, but they were a dead-letter on all of our statute books. In those days men might quarrel in public or in private; they might hurl epithets at one another by the hour or by the day, so long as neither one of the belligerents raised a hand against the other, society and law took no cognizance of the unhappy occurrence. Men might exchange the vilest expressions and fill the air with theirsulphurousmaledictions; they might insult the public ear with a riot of profanation, no breach of the peace occurred in the eye of the law until blows were given or exchanged.In the twentieth century it was finally discovered that the tongue was often a more offensive disturber of the peace than a blow of the fist. It was then recognized that vile expressions, particularly those which attacked innocent members of a family, were more cruel and cutting than blows delivered by hand or weapon. Society and law in the twentieth century determined to uproot and severely punish the offending of a vile tongue.Wife-beaters in 1999 were speedily brought to time. These degraded specimens of humanity finally received their just dues on conviction. The lash which the State of Delaware wields to such excellent advantage in many criminal cases was generally regarded as inadequate punishmentfor such brutes. It was felt that wife-beaters should be made conspicuous examples before the community.Every town in the Americas, from Alaska to Patagonia, was provided with a largePunishment of Wife Beaters.derrick, erected upon a solid stone foundation on the edge of some body of water. On the day and hour appointed for the execution of the sentence, the culprit was taken from the town jail or lock-up by the sheriff of the county. A large concourse of citizens usually gathered in the locality of the derrick to witness the “water cure.” Arriving there, the sheriff adjusted two belts around the prisoner, one under his arms and theA First-class Water Cure.other about his loins. The belts were connected by a broad strap over the back, in the center of which was firmly fastened a large hook. This hook was fastened to the chain or rope of the derrick. Upon a given signal the prisoner was hoisted to the top of the arm of the derrick, which was then swung over the sheet of water. The windlass of the derrick was let loose and the prisoner plunged, usually a distance of twenty feet, into the water. He was then hoisted up again, and the dose repeated three more times. When the punishment was over the prisoner was properly cared for by the sheriff and his possé. He was conveyed insome vehicle back to the jail, where his ducking suit was removed. Attendants were on hand, who rubbed him dry and helped him put on his own clothes. He was then given refreshment and a cup of strong coffee and admonished to go forth and do better.THE PUNISHMENT FOR WIFE-BEATING IN 1999.THE PUNISHMENT FOR WIFE-BEATING IN 1999.In the by-gone days of the eighteenth century, highwaymen, Dick Turpins, JackHighwaymen and Pirates.Shepherds and the robber element, held high carnival, flourishing in their plenitude and zenith. The old stage coach days greatly favored the success of their profession. The appearance of steam ruined their avocation. The same fate befell the pirates of the high seas, marine highwaymen who thrived and carried on their nefarious trade in the days of sailing ships. When steam came into general use it became impossible for them to ply their trade. A steam pirate ship could not very well carry on operations. Frequent coaling and repairs to machinery soon revealed their identity.The highwayman and his confrère, the pirate, were children of the 18th century. The conditions of that period favored their existence. They who would pursue the highwayman must have the swifter horse, otherwise pursuit became futile. The sailing man-of-war that would overtake the pirate must have a swifter keel or lose the race. But when came the days of steamthese marauders by land and sea were driven from their lairs.These were products of the 18th century, but it was in the 19th century that the tramp, a degenerate son of the bold thieves above mentioned, first saw the lightThe Great American Tramp.of day. The tramp of the 19th century, (an exclusive exotic of that era,) was a compound mixture of loafer and robber. He led a life of leisure. The law of that period rather encouraged his existence than otherwise. After roaming over the country during the open summer weather, as the first flakes of snow fell, the tramp, with the utmost ease, contrived to secure a six months’ sentence in some county jail. Once safelyensconcedunder the sheriff’s wing for the winter months, he congratulated himself as a most favoredA Tramp’s Paradise in 1899.mortal. He was sure, above all things, of not having any work to do. That supreme misfortune having been averted, the tramp was at peace with the world. Work and soap were his deadly enemies; could the jail save him from these, come what might, his serenity of mind remained undisturbed. He had a warm bed, three regular warm meals daily, with the privilege of playing cards, smoking and reading as suited best his fancy. What better could any tramp ask for? The county jail was to him a haven of rest,—a paradise.This delightful condition of affairs, however, rapidly changed in the 20th century. Society grew tired of turning county jails into tramp colleges, from which, after a very pleasant winter’s rest, the tramp graduated in the spring and was again let loose upon the community. Tramps were compelled to work or starve in our county jails long before 1910. They were given plenty of stone to crush under suitable sheds, and the product of their labor contributed to better roads. After a few years, the new law had its effect. The tramp rapidly disappeared and monuments of stone were raised in every county jail to the memory of an extinct species.The twentieth century method of exchanging salutations in public places was in marked contrast with the custom that obtained in the nineteenth century. During the latter period on meeting friends or acquaintances in public places, it was a custom established from time immemorial, when ladies and gentlemen met, for the gentleman to uncover by raising his hat.New Style of Salutation.This was a graceful as well as a distinct act of courtesy. The lady, however, in nine cases out of ten, acknowledged the salutation, by merely looking in the direction of the one who had just saluted her. The lady occasionally added a smile in cases that were warranted by ties of friendship. Thesecourtesies were graceful but in the twentieth century the ladies were the first to acknowledge that their method of salutation was ambiguous and indefinite. It was not as pronounced and distinctive as the salutation accorded them by the sterner sex. Suspicion crept into the public mind that there was room for improvement in the exchange of salutation on both sides.About the period of 1925 a radical change was effected. Upon meeting in public places, it was no longer customary for the gentleman to uncover, or for the lady to cast a glance inacknowledgmentof his salutation. The mode was simplified. Ladies and gentlemen saluted one another in precisely the same manner. Each one, upon approach, raised their right hand in military salute, touching the hat, and by a quick movement, letting the hand drop to the side. This new custom placed both sexes upon equal and exact terms.Whenever, in the twentieth century, a gentleman addressed a lady, after the usual military salutation, it was his duty to uncover and hold his hat in his right hand, regardless of the weather. Failure to do this would result in non-recognition on the part of the lady. The respect due to the fair sex perceptibly increased in the twentieth century and so must it ever increase as the world’s civilization advances.Man may be classed as being a carniverous animal. Vegetarians hold a differenttheory. They banish from their tables the flesh of beasts or birds that have been killed, eschewing meats of all kinds. It is the privilege of the vegetarian to live up to the dietary standard which he has adopted. Two-thirds of the human family take issue with the vegetarian on this subject. The vast majority are in favor of meats of all kinds as an article of food. In the nineteenth, and, in fact, in all the preceding centuries, the delicacies of the table most highly esteemed were those in which rare viands of every variety were included.A model nineteenth century table reveled in such dishes asturbot à la cardinal, muttonA Standard of Food.chops, pork cutlets, lamb, spring chicken, selle-de mouton, ham, tongue, roast partridge, roast duck with sage dressing, turkey and cranberry sauce, braized mutton, deviled crabs, meat fritters, sausage, cold boiled ham. These savory meat dishes invariably played leading rôles at the tables of rich and poor. Vegetables and desserts were regarded as adjuncts to the feast.Vegetarians regard such food as alien to the human system and unnecessary to its sustenance. Added to this the vegetarians entertain a sentimental view of the meat-food question. They claim that man has no right to kill beast, fish, bird or fowl, to secure food supplies, and that all flesh food should be eliminated from the human system.A vegetarian’s table was garnished with delightful dishes, such as sliced oranges, buttered toast, baked quinces, quaking omelet, shredded wheat biscuits, dates with quaker oats, fried hominy, stewed prunes, macaroni and cheese, stewed fig with whipped cream, French-fried potatoes, oyster plant and rice muffins. These dishes are clean and wholesome, although decidedly tame from certain points of view.Vegetarians in 1999 were more emphatic in their views than their brethren of 1899.Vegetarians Refuse to Wear Shoes.They still enjoyed peanut sandwiches, fried egg-plant steak, health crackers, nut biscuits, spiced beans and other delicacies dear to the hearts of those who have foresworn eating the flesh of “suffering, sentient things.” In 1999 vegetarians refused to wear leather shoes. It came hard at first but shoes had to be sacrificed to principle. They refused to eat meat because it necessitated the killing of beast or fowl. On this account also they refused to wear shoes of leather because the beef must be killed in order to procure the leather. For the same reason vegetarians in 1999 refused to wear silk of any kind because its manufacture cost the lives of the dear little worms. They also refused, for the same reason, to carry alligator skin pocket books. It was so wrong to kill the poor alligators. Vegetarians claim that flesh is from ten totwenty times more expensive than fruits or cereals, and that it is unphilosophical and unbusinesslike to pay the larger sum for inferior food. Neither justice nor benevolence can sanction the revolting cruelties that are daily perpetrated in order to pamper perverted and unnatural appetites. Vegetarians in 1999 were horrified at the practices of the nineteenth century, when butchers would take innocent little lambs, the most harmless and pitiful creatures, and cut their throats in the slaughter house. The seas of blood that flowed through Chicago slaughter pens had no attractions for vegetarians.In 1999 the world was by no means converted to any single theory or idea on the food question. A delicious cold ham sandwich or slice of turkey with truffles still delighted the palates of millions in that year. The savory hot bird, washed down with a cold bottle, still held captive many epicureans in the closing days of the twentieth century. The birds of the air and beasts of the field still contributed to the world’s gastronomic pleasures. In 1999 the vegetarian remained faithful to his creed. Plum pudding, peaches in wine, haricots vert, and other delicacies held the place of honor at their tables.But in 1999 the world became more liberal in its views on the meat-food question. In the nineteenth century no argument could shake the prejudice existing againstthe consumption of horseflesh. Anyone in 1899 who could champion the use ofThe Prejudice against Horseflesh.horseflesh and advocate its sale in open market on the same counter as hogs and poultry, would be regarded in the light of a barbarian or a person of unwholesome practice.Such is the utter blindness of custom and prejudice that in 1899 the daintiest maiden, who might faint at the sight of a mouse, would occasionally smell the stench of a pig-sty, yet, without the least compunction, would sit at table and enjoy a pork chop, pork stew, pork roast, in fact pork in any form. At the mere mention of a horse roast or horse stew, the same delicate young lady would manifest her disdain, and if such dishes were set before her, her indignation might turn into riot. This was in 1899.In 1999 people acquired more “horse sense.” Education, in time, broke downCleaner Than Hogs or Chickens.the barriers of pure prejudice and senseless custom. In that year it became recognized and fully acknowledged that the cleanest member of the animal kingdom, the horse, was fit food for human beings who had the strength of stomach to eat the hog, one of the filthiest, filth-devouring animals known to man, an animal whose flesh was regarded with horror by many branches of thehuman family, animals into which our Savior did not hesitate to cast devils. In 1999 it was the universal belief that people who could stomach pork and take their chances in contracting trichinæ, could well afford to digest the clean, wholesome flesh of horses. No animal has any cleaner habits, or more wholesome food than the horse. Such is custom, habit and prejudice. If our ancestors had taught us from the days of the Cæsars to eat horse flesh and to shun pork and poultry, it is more than probable that a man caught eating the latter would have been driven from any community as a disgrace to his kind.Prejudice and custom are hard task masters. In 1925 it became a custom to eatEating Raw Fish.raw fish. The fish in such cases were carefully cleaned before serving. The head, entrails and other parts were removed and the raw flesh was served with salt and pepper. Even this simple process required an education. Many with capricious stomachs revolted at the treatment. They could not digest raw fish that had been killed and nicely cleaned before eating, but they would readily eat any quantity of raw oysters from the shell, also clams, and eat them while the bivalves were still alive.The “servant question” reached a very satisfactory solution long before 1999. As early as 1907, State Normal schools toteach the culinary art and to educate servants were instituted. In the nineteenth century the servant class in America was the hoodoo of the housekeeper and homemaker. Thousands of young women in 1899, without the slightest knowledge or qualifications as housekeepers, entered into matrimony. Unable to cook a loaf of bread or make a simple biscuit, hardly knowing theSome Very “Lame” Cooks.difference between hot and cold water, these zealous but inexperienced wives suddenly discovered themselves in charge of a household and all its responsibilities. In this unhappy condition they relied upon hired help to do the work. In many instances the servant knew as little about cooking as her newly wedded mistress. It was a case of “the blind leading the blind,” and much unhappiness resulted.Early in the 20th century public exigencies demanded a radical change. The servant question advanced to the front. The dignity of her position was raised in the social scale. The backward civilization of 1899 treated the servant as a drudge or menial. Long hours of service, from early morn till late at night, were imposed upon her, while her wages were slender. In the country her life was more endurable because she was often treated as a member of the family. In cities, however, her lot was an unhappy one. The servant plodded alongin her solitary work, often busy and at work fifteen hours every day. Even in free-born, liberty-loving America the servant in 1899 was made to regard herself as an inferior being.It was in this chaotic condition of affairs that schools for the instruction of housekeepers were opened and assisted by large annuities from the State. Before 1950 every town in the several States throughout the Americas boasted of its State CookingState Schools for Cooking.School. These schools became very popular in the Central American States such as Mexico, San Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, as well as in the southern States of Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and others of that group of the American Union. As a result of this wise policy the fame and laurels of French cookery were transferred to our American culinary artists. Not even the famed cooks of China could equal the skill of the instructed and trained American cooks. No servant could get a situation as cook in 1999 unless they could produce a diploma from a State School of Cookery. They demanded more pay and were allowed to work only eight hours per day. As a result of having skilled housekeepers, homes were rendered better and happier.In 1999 America still remained the land of model hotels. In the 19th century the fame of Americans for maintaining the bestconducted and most palatial hostelries was already world-wide. Our city palace-hotels had no rivals in the world worthy of the name. In the twentieth century their enviable fame in this line continued to increase. Chicago and Manhattan still maintained their ancient rivalry in the hotel business. Many of the palace hotels of 1999 had walls built with opaque, rock face glass in the most attractive styles of architecture. From a distance they resembled fairy palaces. Marble and brick were occasionally employed in construction but glass came into high favor as being imperishable as well as highly ornamental. The old saying that “those who live in glass houses should not throw stones,” answered very well in the 19th century, when glass houses, such as conservatories, were exceedingly fragile structures. In the 20th century no structures could be more durable than these hotels with glass walls, built with blocks of great thickness and in every color of the prism. They were fire-proof for the simple reason that no one had any use for fire in any hotel or public building in 1999. Electricity was employed to the exclusion of all other agencies for heating and lighting, as well as for motive power.

Kissing prohibited in the twentieth century. The curbing of the tongue. The National punishment for wife beaters. The passing of the tramp. New methods of salutation. Vegetarians remain true to principle. Horse flesh as an article of food. Schools for training housekeepers. American hotels in 1999 still lead the world.

Kissing as a fine art was on the wane in the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century the Japanese had long banished that custom as one dangerous to health and as a medium for communicating infectious diseases. In that remarkable and highly progressive country no kisses, or salutation with the lips, are exchanged between husband and wife, parent and son, brother and sister.The custom, without doubt, is an unwholesome one, yet one in vogue for soKissing Strictly Prohibited.many centuries, even in the days of the Romans, that it became a second nature. In the nineteenth century one might as well attempt to scale Mt.Rainierwith a ladder as to endeavor to convince the mother of a new born babe that kissing is a dangerous habit. The lover in his rapturous mode expresses in a kiss the acme of his devotion. It seems cruel to destroy idols before whomwe have bowed down and offered incense during a whole lifetime. Custom, tradition and education are hard task-masters. They cling to us through life like limpets to a rock.Kissing, however, never came under ban of the law in the twentieth century, but the practice was discontinued on purely hygienic grounds. The mode of salutation in 1999 that was regarded as being the most tender expression of love, consisted of a gentle patting of the cheek. The advanced reason of the age broke the barriers of custom in this case; lips were seldom allowed to touch lips. A pressure of the hand became ample compensation for the most ardent lovers, while the matchless language of the eyes left no room for doubt in a lover’s breast that his love was reciprocated.In the twentieth century men began to acknowledge the absolute folly of theThe Cursing Habit.cursing habit. If any excuse could ever be offered in palliation of this vicious habit it might be made in the case of a man whose mind was disturbed by angry passions. In an outburst of passion a slight pretext might be offered for the vigorous use of unwritten Anglo-Saxon. But the twentieth century very properly turned its face against the practice of verbal profanation. This reprehensible habit was made punishable, in every instance, by a heavy fine and imprisonment.In the nineteenth century laws against profanity already existed, but they were a dead-letter on all of our statute books. In those days men might quarrel in public or in private; they might hurl epithets at one another by the hour or by the day, so long as neither one of the belligerents raised a hand against the other, society and law took no cognizance of the unhappy occurrence. Men might exchange the vilest expressions and fill the air with theirsulphurousmaledictions; they might insult the public ear with a riot of profanation, no breach of the peace occurred in the eye of the law until blows were given or exchanged.In the twentieth century it was finally discovered that the tongue was often a more offensive disturber of the peace than a blow of the fist. It was then recognized that vile expressions, particularly those which attacked innocent members of a family, were more cruel and cutting than blows delivered by hand or weapon. Society and law in the twentieth century determined to uproot and severely punish the offending of a vile tongue.Wife-beaters in 1999 were speedily brought to time. These degraded specimens of humanity finally received their just dues on conviction. The lash which the State of Delaware wields to such excellent advantage in many criminal cases was generally regarded as inadequate punishmentfor such brutes. It was felt that wife-beaters should be made conspicuous examples before the community.Every town in the Americas, from Alaska to Patagonia, was provided with a largePunishment of Wife Beaters.derrick, erected upon a solid stone foundation on the edge of some body of water. On the day and hour appointed for the execution of the sentence, the culprit was taken from the town jail or lock-up by the sheriff of the county. A large concourse of citizens usually gathered in the locality of the derrick to witness the “water cure.” Arriving there, the sheriff adjusted two belts around the prisoner, one under his arms and theA First-class Water Cure.other about his loins. The belts were connected by a broad strap over the back, in the center of which was firmly fastened a large hook. This hook was fastened to the chain or rope of the derrick. Upon a given signal the prisoner was hoisted to the top of the arm of the derrick, which was then swung over the sheet of water. The windlass of the derrick was let loose and the prisoner plunged, usually a distance of twenty feet, into the water. He was then hoisted up again, and the dose repeated three more times. When the punishment was over the prisoner was properly cared for by the sheriff and his possé. He was conveyed insome vehicle back to the jail, where his ducking suit was removed. Attendants were on hand, who rubbed him dry and helped him put on his own clothes. He was then given refreshment and a cup of strong coffee and admonished to go forth and do better.THE PUNISHMENT FOR WIFE-BEATING IN 1999.THE PUNISHMENT FOR WIFE-BEATING IN 1999.In the by-gone days of the eighteenth century, highwaymen, Dick Turpins, JackHighwaymen and Pirates.Shepherds and the robber element, held high carnival, flourishing in their plenitude and zenith. The old stage coach days greatly favored the success of their profession. The appearance of steam ruined their avocation. The same fate befell the pirates of the high seas, marine highwaymen who thrived and carried on their nefarious trade in the days of sailing ships. When steam came into general use it became impossible for them to ply their trade. A steam pirate ship could not very well carry on operations. Frequent coaling and repairs to machinery soon revealed their identity.The highwayman and his confrère, the pirate, were children of the 18th century. The conditions of that period favored their existence. They who would pursue the highwayman must have the swifter horse, otherwise pursuit became futile. The sailing man-of-war that would overtake the pirate must have a swifter keel or lose the race. But when came the days of steamthese marauders by land and sea were driven from their lairs.These were products of the 18th century, but it was in the 19th century that the tramp, a degenerate son of the bold thieves above mentioned, first saw the lightThe Great American Tramp.of day. The tramp of the 19th century, (an exclusive exotic of that era,) was a compound mixture of loafer and robber. He led a life of leisure. The law of that period rather encouraged his existence than otherwise. After roaming over the country during the open summer weather, as the first flakes of snow fell, the tramp, with the utmost ease, contrived to secure a six months’ sentence in some county jail. Once safelyensconcedunder the sheriff’s wing for the winter months, he congratulated himself as a most favoredA Tramp’s Paradise in 1899.mortal. He was sure, above all things, of not having any work to do. That supreme misfortune having been averted, the tramp was at peace with the world. Work and soap were his deadly enemies; could the jail save him from these, come what might, his serenity of mind remained undisturbed. He had a warm bed, three regular warm meals daily, with the privilege of playing cards, smoking and reading as suited best his fancy. What better could any tramp ask for? The county jail was to him a haven of rest,—a paradise.This delightful condition of affairs, however, rapidly changed in the 20th century. Society grew tired of turning county jails into tramp colleges, from which, after a very pleasant winter’s rest, the tramp graduated in the spring and was again let loose upon the community. Tramps were compelled to work or starve in our county jails long before 1910. They were given plenty of stone to crush under suitable sheds, and the product of their labor contributed to better roads. After a few years, the new law had its effect. The tramp rapidly disappeared and monuments of stone were raised in every county jail to the memory of an extinct species.The twentieth century method of exchanging salutations in public places was in marked contrast with the custom that obtained in the nineteenth century. During the latter period on meeting friends or acquaintances in public places, it was a custom established from time immemorial, when ladies and gentlemen met, for the gentleman to uncover by raising his hat.New Style of Salutation.This was a graceful as well as a distinct act of courtesy. The lady, however, in nine cases out of ten, acknowledged the salutation, by merely looking in the direction of the one who had just saluted her. The lady occasionally added a smile in cases that were warranted by ties of friendship. Thesecourtesies were graceful but in the twentieth century the ladies were the first to acknowledge that their method of salutation was ambiguous and indefinite. It was not as pronounced and distinctive as the salutation accorded them by the sterner sex. Suspicion crept into the public mind that there was room for improvement in the exchange of salutation on both sides.About the period of 1925 a radical change was effected. Upon meeting in public places, it was no longer customary for the gentleman to uncover, or for the lady to cast a glance inacknowledgmentof his salutation. The mode was simplified. Ladies and gentlemen saluted one another in precisely the same manner. Each one, upon approach, raised their right hand in military salute, touching the hat, and by a quick movement, letting the hand drop to the side. This new custom placed both sexes upon equal and exact terms.Whenever, in the twentieth century, a gentleman addressed a lady, after the usual military salutation, it was his duty to uncover and hold his hat in his right hand, regardless of the weather. Failure to do this would result in non-recognition on the part of the lady. The respect due to the fair sex perceptibly increased in the twentieth century and so must it ever increase as the world’s civilization advances.Man may be classed as being a carniverous animal. Vegetarians hold a differenttheory. They banish from their tables the flesh of beasts or birds that have been killed, eschewing meats of all kinds. It is the privilege of the vegetarian to live up to the dietary standard which he has adopted. Two-thirds of the human family take issue with the vegetarian on this subject. The vast majority are in favor of meats of all kinds as an article of food. In the nineteenth, and, in fact, in all the preceding centuries, the delicacies of the table most highly esteemed were those in which rare viands of every variety were included.A model nineteenth century table reveled in such dishes asturbot à la cardinal, muttonA Standard of Food.chops, pork cutlets, lamb, spring chicken, selle-de mouton, ham, tongue, roast partridge, roast duck with sage dressing, turkey and cranberry sauce, braized mutton, deviled crabs, meat fritters, sausage, cold boiled ham. These savory meat dishes invariably played leading rôles at the tables of rich and poor. Vegetables and desserts were regarded as adjuncts to the feast.Vegetarians regard such food as alien to the human system and unnecessary to its sustenance. Added to this the vegetarians entertain a sentimental view of the meat-food question. They claim that man has no right to kill beast, fish, bird or fowl, to secure food supplies, and that all flesh food should be eliminated from the human system.A vegetarian’s table was garnished with delightful dishes, such as sliced oranges, buttered toast, baked quinces, quaking omelet, shredded wheat biscuits, dates with quaker oats, fried hominy, stewed prunes, macaroni and cheese, stewed fig with whipped cream, French-fried potatoes, oyster plant and rice muffins. These dishes are clean and wholesome, although decidedly tame from certain points of view.Vegetarians in 1999 were more emphatic in their views than their brethren of 1899.Vegetarians Refuse to Wear Shoes.They still enjoyed peanut sandwiches, fried egg-plant steak, health crackers, nut biscuits, spiced beans and other delicacies dear to the hearts of those who have foresworn eating the flesh of “suffering, sentient things.” In 1999 vegetarians refused to wear leather shoes. It came hard at first but shoes had to be sacrificed to principle. They refused to eat meat because it necessitated the killing of beast or fowl. On this account also they refused to wear shoes of leather because the beef must be killed in order to procure the leather. For the same reason vegetarians in 1999 refused to wear silk of any kind because its manufacture cost the lives of the dear little worms. They also refused, for the same reason, to carry alligator skin pocket books. It was so wrong to kill the poor alligators. Vegetarians claim that flesh is from ten totwenty times more expensive than fruits or cereals, and that it is unphilosophical and unbusinesslike to pay the larger sum for inferior food. Neither justice nor benevolence can sanction the revolting cruelties that are daily perpetrated in order to pamper perverted and unnatural appetites. Vegetarians in 1999 were horrified at the practices of the nineteenth century, when butchers would take innocent little lambs, the most harmless and pitiful creatures, and cut their throats in the slaughter house. The seas of blood that flowed through Chicago slaughter pens had no attractions for vegetarians.In 1999 the world was by no means converted to any single theory or idea on the food question. A delicious cold ham sandwich or slice of turkey with truffles still delighted the palates of millions in that year. The savory hot bird, washed down with a cold bottle, still held captive many epicureans in the closing days of the twentieth century. The birds of the air and beasts of the field still contributed to the world’s gastronomic pleasures. In 1999 the vegetarian remained faithful to his creed. Plum pudding, peaches in wine, haricots vert, and other delicacies held the place of honor at their tables.But in 1999 the world became more liberal in its views on the meat-food question. In the nineteenth century no argument could shake the prejudice existing againstthe consumption of horseflesh. Anyone in 1899 who could champion the use ofThe Prejudice against Horseflesh.horseflesh and advocate its sale in open market on the same counter as hogs and poultry, would be regarded in the light of a barbarian or a person of unwholesome practice.Such is the utter blindness of custom and prejudice that in 1899 the daintiest maiden, who might faint at the sight of a mouse, would occasionally smell the stench of a pig-sty, yet, without the least compunction, would sit at table and enjoy a pork chop, pork stew, pork roast, in fact pork in any form. At the mere mention of a horse roast or horse stew, the same delicate young lady would manifest her disdain, and if such dishes were set before her, her indignation might turn into riot. This was in 1899.In 1999 people acquired more “horse sense.” Education, in time, broke downCleaner Than Hogs or Chickens.the barriers of pure prejudice and senseless custom. In that year it became recognized and fully acknowledged that the cleanest member of the animal kingdom, the horse, was fit food for human beings who had the strength of stomach to eat the hog, one of the filthiest, filth-devouring animals known to man, an animal whose flesh was regarded with horror by many branches of thehuman family, animals into which our Savior did not hesitate to cast devils. In 1999 it was the universal belief that people who could stomach pork and take their chances in contracting trichinæ, could well afford to digest the clean, wholesome flesh of horses. No animal has any cleaner habits, or more wholesome food than the horse. Such is custom, habit and prejudice. If our ancestors had taught us from the days of the Cæsars to eat horse flesh and to shun pork and poultry, it is more than probable that a man caught eating the latter would have been driven from any community as a disgrace to his kind.Prejudice and custom are hard task masters. In 1925 it became a custom to eatEating Raw Fish.raw fish. The fish in such cases were carefully cleaned before serving. The head, entrails and other parts were removed and the raw flesh was served with salt and pepper. Even this simple process required an education. Many with capricious stomachs revolted at the treatment. They could not digest raw fish that had been killed and nicely cleaned before eating, but they would readily eat any quantity of raw oysters from the shell, also clams, and eat them while the bivalves were still alive.The “servant question” reached a very satisfactory solution long before 1999. As early as 1907, State Normal schools toteach the culinary art and to educate servants were instituted. In the nineteenth century the servant class in America was the hoodoo of the housekeeper and homemaker. Thousands of young women in 1899, without the slightest knowledge or qualifications as housekeepers, entered into matrimony. Unable to cook a loaf of bread or make a simple biscuit, hardly knowing theSome Very “Lame” Cooks.difference between hot and cold water, these zealous but inexperienced wives suddenly discovered themselves in charge of a household and all its responsibilities. In this unhappy condition they relied upon hired help to do the work. In many instances the servant knew as little about cooking as her newly wedded mistress. It was a case of “the blind leading the blind,” and much unhappiness resulted.Early in the 20th century public exigencies demanded a radical change. The servant question advanced to the front. The dignity of her position was raised in the social scale. The backward civilization of 1899 treated the servant as a drudge or menial. Long hours of service, from early morn till late at night, were imposed upon her, while her wages were slender. In the country her life was more endurable because she was often treated as a member of the family. In cities, however, her lot was an unhappy one. The servant plodded alongin her solitary work, often busy and at work fifteen hours every day. Even in free-born, liberty-loving America the servant in 1899 was made to regard herself as an inferior being.It was in this chaotic condition of affairs that schools for the instruction of housekeepers were opened and assisted by large annuities from the State. Before 1950 every town in the several States throughout the Americas boasted of its State CookingState Schools for Cooking.School. These schools became very popular in the Central American States such as Mexico, San Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, as well as in the southern States of Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and others of that group of the American Union. As a result of this wise policy the fame and laurels of French cookery were transferred to our American culinary artists. Not even the famed cooks of China could equal the skill of the instructed and trained American cooks. No servant could get a situation as cook in 1999 unless they could produce a diploma from a State School of Cookery. They demanded more pay and were allowed to work only eight hours per day. As a result of having skilled housekeepers, homes were rendered better and happier.In 1999 America still remained the land of model hotels. In the 19th century the fame of Americans for maintaining the bestconducted and most palatial hostelries was already world-wide. Our city palace-hotels had no rivals in the world worthy of the name. In the twentieth century their enviable fame in this line continued to increase. Chicago and Manhattan still maintained their ancient rivalry in the hotel business. Many of the palace hotels of 1999 had walls built with opaque, rock face glass in the most attractive styles of architecture. From a distance they resembled fairy palaces. Marble and brick were occasionally employed in construction but glass came into high favor as being imperishable as well as highly ornamental. The old saying that “those who live in glass houses should not throw stones,” answered very well in the 19th century, when glass houses, such as conservatories, were exceedingly fragile structures. In the 20th century no structures could be more durable than these hotels with glass walls, built with blocks of great thickness and in every color of the prism. They were fire-proof for the simple reason that no one had any use for fire in any hotel or public building in 1999. Electricity was employed to the exclusion of all other agencies for heating and lighting, as well as for motive power.

The custom, without doubt, is an unwholesome one, yet one in vogue for soKissing Strictly Prohibited.many centuries, even in the days of the Romans, that it became a second nature. In the nineteenth century one might as well attempt to scale Mt.Rainierwith a ladder as to endeavor to convince the mother of a new born babe that kissing is a dangerous habit. The lover in his rapturous mode expresses in a kiss the acme of his devotion. It seems cruel to destroy idols before whomwe have bowed down and offered incense during a whole lifetime. Custom, tradition and education are hard task-masters. They cling to us through life like limpets to a rock.

Kissing, however, never came under ban of the law in the twentieth century, but the practice was discontinued on purely hygienic grounds. The mode of salutation in 1999 that was regarded as being the most tender expression of love, consisted of a gentle patting of the cheek. The advanced reason of the age broke the barriers of custom in this case; lips were seldom allowed to touch lips. A pressure of the hand became ample compensation for the most ardent lovers, while the matchless language of the eyes left no room for doubt in a lover’s breast that his love was reciprocated.

In the twentieth century men began to acknowledge the absolute folly of theThe Cursing Habit.cursing habit. If any excuse could ever be offered in palliation of this vicious habit it might be made in the case of a man whose mind was disturbed by angry passions. In an outburst of passion a slight pretext might be offered for the vigorous use of unwritten Anglo-Saxon. But the twentieth century very properly turned its face against the practice of verbal profanation. This reprehensible habit was made punishable, in every instance, by a heavy fine and imprisonment.

In the nineteenth century laws against profanity already existed, but they were a dead-letter on all of our statute books. In those days men might quarrel in public or in private; they might hurl epithets at one another by the hour or by the day, so long as neither one of the belligerents raised a hand against the other, society and law took no cognizance of the unhappy occurrence. Men might exchange the vilest expressions and fill the air with theirsulphurousmaledictions; they might insult the public ear with a riot of profanation, no breach of the peace occurred in the eye of the law until blows were given or exchanged.

In the twentieth century it was finally discovered that the tongue was often a more offensive disturber of the peace than a blow of the fist. It was then recognized that vile expressions, particularly those which attacked innocent members of a family, were more cruel and cutting than blows delivered by hand or weapon. Society and law in the twentieth century determined to uproot and severely punish the offending of a vile tongue.

Wife-beaters in 1999 were speedily brought to time. These degraded specimens of humanity finally received their just dues on conviction. The lash which the State of Delaware wields to such excellent advantage in many criminal cases was generally regarded as inadequate punishmentfor such brutes. It was felt that wife-beaters should be made conspicuous examples before the community.

Every town in the Americas, from Alaska to Patagonia, was provided with a largePunishment of Wife Beaters.derrick, erected upon a solid stone foundation on the edge of some body of water. On the day and hour appointed for the execution of the sentence, the culprit was taken from the town jail or lock-up by the sheriff of the county. A large concourse of citizens usually gathered in the locality of the derrick to witness the “water cure.” Arriving there, the sheriff adjusted two belts around the prisoner, one under his arms and theA First-class Water Cure.other about his loins. The belts were connected by a broad strap over the back, in the center of which was firmly fastened a large hook. This hook was fastened to the chain or rope of the derrick. Upon a given signal the prisoner was hoisted to the top of the arm of the derrick, which was then swung over the sheet of water. The windlass of the derrick was let loose and the prisoner plunged, usually a distance of twenty feet, into the water. He was then hoisted up again, and the dose repeated three more times. When the punishment was over the prisoner was properly cared for by the sheriff and his possé. He was conveyed insome vehicle back to the jail, where his ducking suit was removed. Attendants were on hand, who rubbed him dry and helped him put on his own clothes. He was then given refreshment and a cup of strong coffee and admonished to go forth and do better.

THE PUNISHMENT FOR WIFE-BEATING IN 1999.THE PUNISHMENT FOR WIFE-BEATING IN 1999.

THE PUNISHMENT FOR WIFE-BEATING IN 1999.

In the by-gone days of the eighteenth century, highwaymen, Dick Turpins, JackHighwaymen and Pirates.Shepherds and the robber element, held high carnival, flourishing in their plenitude and zenith. The old stage coach days greatly favored the success of their profession. The appearance of steam ruined their avocation. The same fate befell the pirates of the high seas, marine highwaymen who thrived and carried on their nefarious trade in the days of sailing ships. When steam came into general use it became impossible for them to ply their trade. A steam pirate ship could not very well carry on operations. Frequent coaling and repairs to machinery soon revealed their identity.

The highwayman and his confrère, the pirate, were children of the 18th century. The conditions of that period favored their existence. They who would pursue the highwayman must have the swifter horse, otherwise pursuit became futile. The sailing man-of-war that would overtake the pirate must have a swifter keel or lose the race. But when came the days of steamthese marauders by land and sea were driven from their lairs.

These were products of the 18th century, but it was in the 19th century that the tramp, a degenerate son of the bold thieves above mentioned, first saw the lightThe Great American Tramp.of day. The tramp of the 19th century, (an exclusive exotic of that era,) was a compound mixture of loafer and robber. He led a life of leisure. The law of that period rather encouraged his existence than otherwise. After roaming over the country during the open summer weather, as the first flakes of snow fell, the tramp, with the utmost ease, contrived to secure a six months’ sentence in some county jail. Once safelyensconcedunder the sheriff’s wing for the winter months, he congratulated himself as a most favoredA Tramp’s Paradise in 1899.mortal. He was sure, above all things, of not having any work to do. That supreme misfortune having been averted, the tramp was at peace with the world. Work and soap were his deadly enemies; could the jail save him from these, come what might, his serenity of mind remained undisturbed. He had a warm bed, three regular warm meals daily, with the privilege of playing cards, smoking and reading as suited best his fancy. What better could any tramp ask for? The county jail was to him a haven of rest,—a paradise.

This delightful condition of affairs, however, rapidly changed in the 20th century. Society grew tired of turning county jails into tramp colleges, from which, after a very pleasant winter’s rest, the tramp graduated in the spring and was again let loose upon the community. Tramps were compelled to work or starve in our county jails long before 1910. They were given plenty of stone to crush under suitable sheds, and the product of their labor contributed to better roads. After a few years, the new law had its effect. The tramp rapidly disappeared and monuments of stone were raised in every county jail to the memory of an extinct species.

The twentieth century method of exchanging salutations in public places was in marked contrast with the custom that obtained in the nineteenth century. During the latter period on meeting friends or acquaintances in public places, it was a custom established from time immemorial, when ladies and gentlemen met, for the gentleman to uncover by raising his hat.New Style of Salutation.This was a graceful as well as a distinct act of courtesy. The lady, however, in nine cases out of ten, acknowledged the salutation, by merely looking in the direction of the one who had just saluted her. The lady occasionally added a smile in cases that were warranted by ties of friendship. Thesecourtesies were graceful but in the twentieth century the ladies were the first to acknowledge that their method of salutation was ambiguous and indefinite. It was not as pronounced and distinctive as the salutation accorded them by the sterner sex. Suspicion crept into the public mind that there was room for improvement in the exchange of salutation on both sides.

About the period of 1925 a radical change was effected. Upon meeting in public places, it was no longer customary for the gentleman to uncover, or for the lady to cast a glance inacknowledgmentof his salutation. The mode was simplified. Ladies and gentlemen saluted one another in precisely the same manner. Each one, upon approach, raised their right hand in military salute, touching the hat, and by a quick movement, letting the hand drop to the side. This new custom placed both sexes upon equal and exact terms.

Whenever, in the twentieth century, a gentleman addressed a lady, after the usual military salutation, it was his duty to uncover and hold his hat in his right hand, regardless of the weather. Failure to do this would result in non-recognition on the part of the lady. The respect due to the fair sex perceptibly increased in the twentieth century and so must it ever increase as the world’s civilization advances.

Man may be classed as being a carniverous animal. Vegetarians hold a differenttheory. They banish from their tables the flesh of beasts or birds that have been killed, eschewing meats of all kinds. It is the privilege of the vegetarian to live up to the dietary standard which he has adopted. Two-thirds of the human family take issue with the vegetarian on this subject. The vast majority are in favor of meats of all kinds as an article of food. In the nineteenth, and, in fact, in all the preceding centuries, the delicacies of the table most highly esteemed were those in which rare viands of every variety were included.

A model nineteenth century table reveled in such dishes asturbot à la cardinal, muttonA Standard of Food.chops, pork cutlets, lamb, spring chicken, selle-de mouton, ham, tongue, roast partridge, roast duck with sage dressing, turkey and cranberry sauce, braized mutton, deviled crabs, meat fritters, sausage, cold boiled ham. These savory meat dishes invariably played leading rôles at the tables of rich and poor. Vegetables and desserts were regarded as adjuncts to the feast.

Vegetarians regard such food as alien to the human system and unnecessary to its sustenance. Added to this the vegetarians entertain a sentimental view of the meat-food question. They claim that man has no right to kill beast, fish, bird or fowl, to secure food supplies, and that all flesh food should be eliminated from the human system.A vegetarian’s table was garnished with delightful dishes, such as sliced oranges, buttered toast, baked quinces, quaking omelet, shredded wheat biscuits, dates with quaker oats, fried hominy, stewed prunes, macaroni and cheese, stewed fig with whipped cream, French-fried potatoes, oyster plant and rice muffins. These dishes are clean and wholesome, although decidedly tame from certain points of view.

Vegetarians in 1999 were more emphatic in their views than their brethren of 1899.Vegetarians Refuse to Wear Shoes.They still enjoyed peanut sandwiches, fried egg-plant steak, health crackers, nut biscuits, spiced beans and other delicacies dear to the hearts of those who have foresworn eating the flesh of “suffering, sentient things.” In 1999 vegetarians refused to wear leather shoes. It came hard at first but shoes had to be sacrificed to principle. They refused to eat meat because it necessitated the killing of beast or fowl. On this account also they refused to wear shoes of leather because the beef must be killed in order to procure the leather. For the same reason vegetarians in 1999 refused to wear silk of any kind because its manufacture cost the lives of the dear little worms. They also refused, for the same reason, to carry alligator skin pocket books. It was so wrong to kill the poor alligators. Vegetarians claim that flesh is from ten totwenty times more expensive than fruits or cereals, and that it is unphilosophical and unbusinesslike to pay the larger sum for inferior food. Neither justice nor benevolence can sanction the revolting cruelties that are daily perpetrated in order to pamper perverted and unnatural appetites. Vegetarians in 1999 were horrified at the practices of the nineteenth century, when butchers would take innocent little lambs, the most harmless and pitiful creatures, and cut their throats in the slaughter house. The seas of blood that flowed through Chicago slaughter pens had no attractions for vegetarians.

In 1999 the world was by no means converted to any single theory or idea on the food question. A delicious cold ham sandwich or slice of turkey with truffles still delighted the palates of millions in that year. The savory hot bird, washed down with a cold bottle, still held captive many epicureans in the closing days of the twentieth century. The birds of the air and beasts of the field still contributed to the world’s gastronomic pleasures. In 1999 the vegetarian remained faithful to his creed. Plum pudding, peaches in wine, haricots vert, and other delicacies held the place of honor at their tables.

But in 1999 the world became more liberal in its views on the meat-food question. In the nineteenth century no argument could shake the prejudice existing againstthe consumption of horseflesh. Anyone in 1899 who could champion the use ofThe Prejudice against Horseflesh.horseflesh and advocate its sale in open market on the same counter as hogs and poultry, would be regarded in the light of a barbarian or a person of unwholesome practice.

Such is the utter blindness of custom and prejudice that in 1899 the daintiest maiden, who might faint at the sight of a mouse, would occasionally smell the stench of a pig-sty, yet, without the least compunction, would sit at table and enjoy a pork chop, pork stew, pork roast, in fact pork in any form. At the mere mention of a horse roast or horse stew, the same delicate young lady would manifest her disdain, and if such dishes were set before her, her indignation might turn into riot. This was in 1899.

In 1999 people acquired more “horse sense.” Education, in time, broke downCleaner Than Hogs or Chickens.the barriers of pure prejudice and senseless custom. In that year it became recognized and fully acknowledged that the cleanest member of the animal kingdom, the horse, was fit food for human beings who had the strength of stomach to eat the hog, one of the filthiest, filth-devouring animals known to man, an animal whose flesh was regarded with horror by many branches of thehuman family, animals into which our Savior did not hesitate to cast devils. In 1999 it was the universal belief that people who could stomach pork and take their chances in contracting trichinæ, could well afford to digest the clean, wholesome flesh of horses. No animal has any cleaner habits, or more wholesome food than the horse. Such is custom, habit and prejudice. If our ancestors had taught us from the days of the Cæsars to eat horse flesh and to shun pork and poultry, it is more than probable that a man caught eating the latter would have been driven from any community as a disgrace to his kind.

Prejudice and custom are hard task masters. In 1925 it became a custom to eatEating Raw Fish.raw fish. The fish in such cases were carefully cleaned before serving. The head, entrails and other parts were removed and the raw flesh was served with salt and pepper. Even this simple process required an education. Many with capricious stomachs revolted at the treatment. They could not digest raw fish that had been killed and nicely cleaned before eating, but they would readily eat any quantity of raw oysters from the shell, also clams, and eat them while the bivalves were still alive.

The “servant question” reached a very satisfactory solution long before 1999. As early as 1907, State Normal schools toteach the culinary art and to educate servants were instituted. In the nineteenth century the servant class in America was the hoodoo of the housekeeper and homemaker. Thousands of young women in 1899, without the slightest knowledge or qualifications as housekeepers, entered into matrimony. Unable to cook a loaf of bread or make a simple biscuit, hardly knowing theSome Very “Lame” Cooks.difference between hot and cold water, these zealous but inexperienced wives suddenly discovered themselves in charge of a household and all its responsibilities. In this unhappy condition they relied upon hired help to do the work. In many instances the servant knew as little about cooking as her newly wedded mistress. It was a case of “the blind leading the blind,” and much unhappiness resulted.

Early in the 20th century public exigencies demanded a radical change. The servant question advanced to the front. The dignity of her position was raised in the social scale. The backward civilization of 1899 treated the servant as a drudge or menial. Long hours of service, from early morn till late at night, were imposed upon her, while her wages were slender. In the country her life was more endurable because she was often treated as a member of the family. In cities, however, her lot was an unhappy one. The servant plodded alongin her solitary work, often busy and at work fifteen hours every day. Even in free-born, liberty-loving America the servant in 1899 was made to regard herself as an inferior being.

It was in this chaotic condition of affairs that schools for the instruction of housekeepers were opened and assisted by large annuities from the State. Before 1950 every town in the several States throughout the Americas boasted of its State CookingState Schools for Cooking.School. These schools became very popular in the Central American States such as Mexico, San Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, as well as in the southern States of Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and others of that group of the American Union. As a result of this wise policy the fame and laurels of French cookery were transferred to our American culinary artists. Not even the famed cooks of China could equal the skill of the instructed and trained American cooks. No servant could get a situation as cook in 1999 unless they could produce a diploma from a State School of Cookery. They demanded more pay and were allowed to work only eight hours per day. As a result of having skilled housekeepers, homes were rendered better and happier.

In 1999 America still remained the land of model hotels. In the 19th century the fame of Americans for maintaining the bestconducted and most palatial hostelries was already world-wide. Our city palace-hotels had no rivals in the world worthy of the name. In the twentieth century their enviable fame in this line continued to increase. Chicago and Manhattan still maintained their ancient rivalry in the hotel business. Many of the palace hotels of 1999 had walls built with opaque, rock face glass in the most attractive styles of architecture. From a distance they resembled fairy palaces. Marble and brick were occasionally employed in construction but glass came into high favor as being imperishable as well as highly ornamental. The old saying that “those who live in glass houses should not throw stones,” answered very well in the 19th century, when glass houses, such as conservatories, were exceedingly fragile structures. In the 20th century no structures could be more durable than these hotels with glass walls, built with blocks of great thickness and in every color of the prism. They were fire-proof for the simple reason that no one had any use for fire in any hotel or public building in 1999. Electricity was employed to the exclusion of all other agencies for heating and lighting, as well as for motive power.

Back to Index Next