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 so [Kissing 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. Rainier with 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 whom we 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 the [The 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 their sulphurous maledictions;
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 punishment for 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 large [Punishment 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 the
[A 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 in some 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.
In the by-gone days of the eighteenth century, highwaymen, Dick
Turpins, Jack [Highwaymen 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 steam these 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 light [The 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 safely ensconced under
the sheriff's wing for the winter months, he congratulated himself
as a most favored [A 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. These
courtesies 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 in acknowledgment of 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
different theory. 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 as turbot à
la cardinal, mutton [A 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 to twenty 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 against the consumption of horseflesh. Anyone in
1899 who could champion the use of [The 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
down [Cleaner 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 the
human 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 eat [Eating 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 to teach
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 the [Some 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 along in 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 Cooking [State 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 best conducted
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.