WHEN THE READER WRITES SMOKING FOR WOMEN May I ask Mrs. Fulmer why people are not justified in smoking? Smoking after eating certainly causes one to breathe more deeply and as a result food digests more completely. In this twentieth-century era, families of the intelligent class are usually limited to three children, which means that less than three years of a woman's life may be devoted to child-bearing. Would it not be possible to get rid of any effects of nicotine by eliminating smoking for one half year before the starting of each new life? Provided a woman gets a certain amount of pleasure from smoking and does not smoke merely to appear smart, I can see no reason why she might not live to be seventy or eighty years old, having enjoyed smoking for fifty years. Some women manage cigarettes rather gracefully, and smoking, like an occasional drink of wine, tends to liven one's dull wits. I have a fraternity sister who recovered from a serious nervous breakdown largely by the use of four things: bran, raisins, mineral oil and smoking. She started smoking under the doctor's orders. Some people by means of smoking are able to relax, and at the pace most people live to-day, this is most necessary. I can conceive of worshiping a person, and whether he smoked or not would make no difference. I'm inclined to believe that if I married a man who did not smoke that I'd teach him the trick, for doesn't smoking after a meal lend sociability? Men have been smoking for years and I doubt whether the children born of a non-smoking father are stronger than those born of a smoking father. Women did not start smoking until after the war. Perhaps there is a definite connection between smoking and marriage. Since a number of men sacrificed their lives in the World War, more women have been left unmated. With the present discussion of Lindsey's "Companionate Marriage," one cannot ignore the fact that there are definite reasons to-day for the discussion of innumerable sex problems which arise after any war. The most deplorable result of any war is the fact that some of the finest men in a nation have sacri ficed their lives, and the weaklings who may not have been able to fight for the country are left at home to be the fathers of the next generation. Statistics show that sixty per cent of the cigarettes sold are bought by women, so I wish THE CENTURY would discuss intelligently in some article in the body of the magazine this question of women smoking. Of course, many people—mostly conventional women-think the present generation is deteriorating tremendously, but some few womenthose in favor of smoking-think the girl and boy of to-day, although they discuss matters like birthcontrol openly, are as sane and as moral as were the boy and girl in our great grandmother's day. Personally I believe it's unnecessary for the college girl to smoke, largely because she has opportunity for participating in many and varied sports. If a girl goes to a coeducational college where she is constantly with boys, she receives a certain satisfaction from her companionship with them. It's the teacher in the public school worrying about problems of discipline, meeting few men except those teaching in the average high school, teaching perhaps above a piano measuring out the same tune thirty times a day in the gymnasium, repeating the same subject five times a day with only one other course to relieve the monotony, acting as an example, not only to the school children, but to her nieces out of school hours, to parents, and to supervisors who may give an examination in rhetoric to count as a final grade when half of the course has been devoted to literature. It is this woman whom I'd advise to start smoking. She needs some emotional outlet, and if she doesn't do anything worse than smoke in this day and age, she should be beyond criticism. If some of the women who waste their time talking about the deterioration of the present generation would study more about food-correct and well-balanced diets, including vitamines-their own children might be in better physical condition. JANE JACKSON Lancaster, Pennsylvania. My dear Editor, You are to be congratulated upon the very remarkable series of articles that have just been completed in your magazine, "A Modern in Search of Truth." Yours very truly, C. W. REDPATH Kansas City, Missouri. My dear Editor, Please cancel my name from your mailing list. THE CENTURY and another monthly were sent me without my consent. Several years ago I was a constant reader of THE CENTURY-when it published worth-while stories, and criticisms on art and literature. Many of them from the pen of my esteemed friend, Dr. John Van Dyke. Then it began to deteriorate and I stopped reading for a considerable time. Whilst traveling I picked up a copy at the news-stand and was astounded to find in its pages one of the rottenest things I ever perused. Several papers spoke harshly of it. Since that time I have never again looked at it until it was sent me for Christmas. Last week in an idle moment I read one of the stories, "A Proudful Fellow," by a woman. The story winding up with a picture of adultery, murder and suicide! I pity the intelligence of any woman, who can thus advertise the eroticism of her imagination. Many bad books and plays try to palliate their offence by ending with some sort of moral. Julia Peterkin winds up her story with a vile pornographic vision. I shall do all in my power publicly and privately to keep THE CENTURY out of decent families. WILLIAM J. FITZGERALD, D.C.L. Camden, N. J. My dear Editor, May we thank you for your publication's humanness and ability to smile? Judging from some high-class magazines, to smile is vulgar and to laugh is shocking. We like THE CENTURY'S liberal attitude toward Russia, all countries in fact, its freedom as a whole from hate propaganda, though we much regret its militarism. We feel that THE CENTURY is nearer the true inwardness of our country than we find in many quarters. In spite of "Babbitt," in spite of the vials of wrath poured upon us by our own people, we feel that the real grain of the wood is fine. We like your attitude on prohibition also. Very sincerely, MINNIE H. JONES My dear Editor, Permit me to congratulate you in permitting Mrs. Rainey to share with CENTURY readers, in her article, "The Rich Majority," the pleasant philosophy of Rufe of Palm Beach. I'm sure there is quite as much wisdom in "Me-Ah wears this world lak a loose garment," could we learn how this is done, as in the more famous "Tao Teh King"; which is equally difficult to understand. But perhaps wisdom is not meant to be understood. Sincerely yours, H. G. LIEBER Brooklyn, New York. My dear Editor, Why do you flatter that mass of conceit, who brought on the world that wholesale slaughter of men, who was too good to suffer for his inordinate vanity, he who proved the prophesy of his so far superior father the Crown Prince Frederick who said he hoped Wilhelm would not come into power while young for mentally he was not strong enough to bear it. Why do you want the invader of Belgium, the country he had sworn to protect, the man to whom a sacred treaty was only "a scrap of paper," to utter his self laudation? I should think all good Americans had had quite enough at the hands of the sinker of the Lusitania, and of the man who when his "frightfulness" had won the war, said he would pay himself all costs of it, with New York and other cities of the United States. New York City. My dear Editor, Sincerely, E. H. LATHROP I am profoundly impressed with the practicability and simplicity of the plan proposed by Foster and Catchings in their article "Progress and Plenty." The plan should be publicly pushed and finally adopted by the Government. Sincerely yours, South Bend, Indiana. My dear Editor, The plan which Foster and Catchings propose, if put into execution-like all concerted action based upon knowledge-ought to be an important contribution to the solution of our economic troubles. Sincerely, SIR JOSIAH STAMP Vol 116 October 1928 No 6 H JACKSON AND SMITH Two Battling Democrats-A Century Apart WILLIAM B. MUNRO almost every political campaign. Governor Smith is by no means the first Presidential candidate to assault a time-honored usage in connection with the highest office in the gift of the nation. Andrew Jackson did it in an even more obtrusive way exactly a hundred years ago. It may be interesting to draw a few comparisons between these two battling Democrats, Jackson and Smith, with a century intervening between their picturesque campaigns. ISTORY never repeats itself. and new precedents established in Or history always repeats itself. Both these assertions are half true, half false. The course of history does not run in cycles on a plane surface. It does not bring us back to where we were before. Rather it follows the windings of a spiral, up or down. We come back to what looks like the same place, but we are on a higher or a lower level. This is especially true in politics. Situations recur, sometimes a whole century apart, with various fundamental similarities. But there are differences also, and because these are on the surface, they catch the unpractised eye more readily. Take the present election campaign as an illustration. It is said to be unique in the history of American politics. Superficially it is. Never before has a Catholic been nominated for the Presidency by one of the major political parties. A tradition has been broken and a new precedent established. But that is not enough to make a campaign unique in its deeper implications. Traditions of some sort are broken In all the externals, of course, it would be difficult to find two Presidential candidates more unlike. At first glance they would appear to have nothing whatever in common except their allegiance to the Democratic party. Jackson was a favorite son of Tennessee; he came from what was then the nation's geographical frontier and had a distinguished military record behind him. He was, in fact, the most widely known American general of his day. He had served as a judge on the bench and as a member of Congress, but had occupied no executive Copyright, 1928, by THE CENTURY Co. All rights reserved. 641 and in experience. Governor Smith hails from the metropolitan East Side, which is as far from the West as one can get in this land of generous dimensions-both in distance and in point of view. His political apprenticeship was served in Tammany, not in Tennessee. He has no war-record of tribes subdued or invaders repulsed. But he has a fine record of executive experience and it has made him as well known throughout the country as Jackson was. His opponents have searched his public and private life with a microscope, without finding anything reprehensible. There has been no tiger spoor in Albany during the past half-dozen years. office before becoming a Presidential them in personality, in affiliations, candidate. Old Hickory was a crusader by temperament and inclination. He fought the Congressional 'caucus before his election and he made war on the bank after it. He was fond of combat in all its forms. As respects his personal attributes, moreover, Jackson was the joint product of his military experience and his bucolic surroundings. His decisions were quick and erratic. There was no suavity or spirit of compromise in his rather ungainly frame. He chewed tobacco and went about unshaved. He told stories that would have shocked Boccaccio. Having fought both Indians and Englishmen, he went to the polls with a bullet in his body. Take a five-dollar United States note out of your pocket, if you are lucky enough to have one, and you will see his portrait, with firmness written in every line of an iron countenance. His opponent in the election of 1828, John Quincy Adams, called him "that brawler from Tennessee" and not without reason, for Jackson was vituperative in a vernacular that was all his own. He was neither studious nor teachable, and hence during his few terms at school never learned to use the English language correctly. He could employ a dozen adjectives in denouncing somebody or something, but he would misspell every one of them. 229 How sharp, then, may seem to be the contrast between this stormy petrel of the tremulous twenties and the man on whom his mantle has fallen to-day! "As far as the East is from the West," would appear to represent the difference between The contrasts in personality are also great, for there is nothing uncouth about the Elijah who is now trying to lead the Democrats out of the wilderness. He can walk along Fifth Avenue and look the part. He has a legal mind, and a good one. In speech and attire and manners he has a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. If his visage ever gets a chance to adorn the currency, it will require no apology. Most important of all, perhaps, Governor Smith has a sense of humor—which Jackson sadly lacked. All in all, a rather characteristic product of that cosmopolitan city which was founded by the Dutch and conquered by the English in order that it might be ruled by the Irish for the benefit of the Jews. Not much like Jackson, you will say, is this knight-errant of the sidewalks, now sitting astride the donkey's back with a demijohn of wine on one shoulder and a thermos bottle of water on the other. Still, there are some underlying was this brawler from the wilds, an similarities between the two. The interloper, radical and rough-neck historian of the future will bracket too, aspiring to a post which from Jackson and Smith as sons of the the very beginnings of the Republic American frontier. Not of the same had been deemed beyond the reach frontier, to be sure, for the border- of such as he. land of national integration has undergone a great shift during these past ten decades. In 1828 the frontier was geographical; it lay in the West. Racially, that frontier was almost one hundred per cent American; the frontiersmen were largely of native stock, transplanted from the seaboard States into the great hinterland. It did not differ from the older areas in race or religion, but it differed enormously in social and political ideas. The old frontier was a strip of territory in which men developed an intolerance toward all human pretensions based upon ancestry or education, on social status or even on wealth. The common man was deemed to be as good as the best. Hence the right to seek and hold political office was looked upon, out there, as the patrimony of every mother's son. Even the highest office in the land was not deemed exempt from righteous plebeian aspiration. Coming as he did from this environment, Jackson was of the Newer America. His candidacy was garded by the Older America as an intrusion upon holy ground, a challenge to the divine right of the seaboard dynasty. Every President of the United States down to Jackson's time had come from Virginia or Massachusetts. They had all been of the American aristocracy. Even Thomas Jefferson, although a radical in his habits of mind, was a Virginian and a gentleman. But here re Just transpose the language, but keep the idea, and you will find that it has a familiar ring. To millions of our people, Governor Smith is merely trying to do what Jackson did, but from a different point of approach. For he also is a son of the frontier, the new frontier of twentieth-century America. This new frontier is not geographical, as the old one was. It is racial largely, and economic in part. Dividing the newer stock from the native, it does not cut vertically through valleys and plains, but horizontally through the social strata of the population. The true American frontier of to-day— the boundary along which the task of national absorption and integration is proceeding-lies for the most part in our great cities. It is there, on the East Side, or in the North End, or wherever the immigrants and sons of immigrants are massed together. Out of this frontier, the Democratic party has chosen its standardbearer for the campaign of 1928. Like Jackson, he is from the Newer America of his day. Hence Governor Smith's candidacy is similarly defiant of the old traditionalism. Perhaps it offends the primal emotions more deeply and over a larger portion of the country, for among all forms of human intolerance, the religious type is the most unyielding. Men and women who are otherwise open-minded allow themselves to be swayed by it. Mr. Bryan, for ex |