Brass Tacks At Washington

1916

Judge Hughes and the Republican Party are challenged in the new Democratic National Textbook to speak out for or against the record of achievement made by President Wilson and the Democrats.

The challenge is issued in twenty-one brief, direct and pointed questions addressed to Judge Hughes and the Republicans by the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Committee. All the large issues, domestic and international, are treated. The questions carry the caption "Appeal for Light for Sixteen Million Voters: Let Mr. Hughes and the Republican Party Answer."

These questions are:

1. Do you favor repeal of the Federal Reserve Act passed by a Democratic Congress, recommended and approved by President Wilson, under which the danger of financial panics is forever banished from the United States?

2. Would you have protested against the violation of Belgian neutrality and have backed the protest by plunging America into the European carnival of slaughter?

3. Do you favor repeal of the Rural Credits Act, passed by a Democratic Congress, recommended and approved by President Wilson, which gives long-term credit at interest rates that promise an annual saving of $150,000,000 to the farmers?

4. Would you have recognized Victoriano Huerta as President of Mexico?

5. Do. you favor repeal of the Clayton Anti-trust Act, passed by a Democratic Congress and approved by President Wilson, which overthrew the principle that the labor of a human being is a mere commodity of commerce?

6. Will you, Mr. Hughes, recommend, and will the Republican Party in Congress support a law establishing universal compulsory military service in the United States?

7. Do you advocate repeal of the Federal Trade Commission Act, passed by a Democratic Congress, recommended and approved by President Wilson, which has given so much assistance to legitimate business enterprises and under which adequate protection against unfair competion is provided?

8. Mr. Hughes, would you have tried the policy of diplomatic negotiation as a means of summoning the moral force of law and neutral opinion to stop Germany's illegal use of submarines?

9. Do you favor repeal of the "porkless" Good Roads Act, passed by a Democratic Congress and approved by President Wilson, for the development of rural highways?

10. Would you, Mr. Hughes, have broken relations with Germany and sent our young men by the hundreds of thousands to nameless graves at the bottom of the Atlantic or in Flanders before the policy of diplomatic negotiation had had thorough trial?

11. Will you undertake to repeal the income tax, passed by a Democratic Congress, recommended and approved by President Wilson, which places a just share of the burden of taxation upon those best able to bear it?

12. Do you favor violating neutrality and risking the future safety of your country by placing an embargo on munitions of war?

13. Do you favor repeal of the Agricultural Extension Act, passed by a Democratic Congress, recommended and approved by President Wilson, which for the first time provides facilities for carrying direct to the farmer practical scientific knowledge of how to increase the profits of his farm?

14. Do you favor intervention in Mexico?

15. Do you advocate repeal of the Grain Standards and Warehouse Acts, passed by a Democratic Congress, recommended and approved by President Wilson, which aid commerce in the great staple cereals and enable owners of stored agricultural products to secure loans on warehouse receipts on better terms?

16. What is your attitude towards the disloyalists of your party who have attempted to prevent the enforcement by President Wilson, both on the part of the American government and by all American citizens, of an honest neutrality towards all the warring nations of Europe?

17 Inasmuch as the largest amount collected in any one year under the highest tariff ever enacted (Payne-Aldrich Act) was $333,000,000, what form of taxation would you substitute to pay a "Preparedness" cost of $630,000,000?

18. Do you favor the reactionary Republican plan of granting huge subsidies to favored corporations, money collected from the people by taxation, as the best way of encouraging the development of an American merchant marine?

19. Do you favor repeal of the Child Labor Law, the Anti-Injunction Law, the Seaman's Act and related social justice measures of high importance, passed by a Democratic Congress and recommended and approved by President Wilson?

20. Do you favor re-enactment of the Payne-Aldrich Act which betrayed your party's campaign pledge of 1908 and which has been repudiated by many Republican and all Progressive leaders?

21. Do you stand with those Progressives and progressive Republicans in Congress who voted for practically all the progressive measures mentioned above, or do you stand with the reactionary Republicans who voted against them?

In conclusion, the two Democratic Committees say,

"President Wilson and the Democratic Party submit their case to the American people on the record they have made. Broadly speaking that is the issue of the campaign. Upon the public survey and estimate of that record depends the outcome of the election.

"If, as charged by you, Mr. Hughes, and your supporters, that record is bad and does not justify the continued confidence of the country it will become your duty, if elected, to do all in your power to change that record. We submit that in all fairness the American people, for whose verdict you are contesting, are entitled to know how much of this record you and your party will attempt to destroy if placed in power."

—The Fryeburg Post, Fryeburg, Maine, Sept. 12, 1916, p. 8.

Army Jokes With a Moral

1901

"During the civil war," said an ex-army officer, "the authorities for some reason were anxious to move troops up the Tombigbee river. Word was sent to the engineer in that district asking what it would cost to run up the Tombigbee. That official got gay and reported that the Tombigbee ran down and not up, a joke that promptly landed his head in the basket, as the matter was serious.

"At the bombardment of Charleston it was extremely desirable to bring to bear on the city an extra heavy gun called by the men the Swamp Angel. The gun took its name from the swamp in which it stood, and to move it through that boggy morass was an engineering feat of extreme difficulty. However, the commanding officers were determined to have the gun brought within range of Charleston and issued orders to that effect. At the same time they sent word to the engineer having the matter in charge of requisition without regard to trouble or expense for anything necessary to accomplish the desired object. His first requisition called for men 26 feet 6 inches in height. Another officer promptly took the matter in charge, from which it can readily be deduced that it is not a paying investment to make jokes in the army at the expense of your superiors." — New York Tribune.

A Funny Surprise

1901

This story is told by a man who dislikes nothing so much as to be asked questions: "My little girl is very fond of seashells," he said, "and, having been called to Atlantic City on business one day, I took advantage of the opportunity to run down to the beach to see if I could pick up a few. I was strolling along the sand, gathering a few shells and pebbles, which I placed in my handkerchief, when along came one of those old idiots who ask questions with their mouths which their eyes could answer.

"He smiled upon me and said: 'Fine day, isn't it? Are you gathering shells?'

" 'No, I snapped back, saying the first thing that popped into my mind; 'I'm looking for a set of false teeth I lost while in bathing.'

"He expressed his sympathy, and then his face lit up as his eye caught sight of a pink and white object on the sand. 'Well, I declare! Here they are now!' he exclaimed, and, sure enough, he picked up a set of false teeth lying right at his feet. I was too surprised to do anything but grab them and put them in my pocket. The funny part of it is that I never had a tooth pulled in my life. I wonder who that false set belongs to." — Philadelphia Record.

Comb World In Vain for Arnold Girl

Dec. 1915

Relatives Give Up Hope as Five Years Pass Without Trace

Folks Wear Mourning

Disappeared Five Years Ago This Week

Following is the order of Dorothy Arnold's actions December 12, 1910, so far as known up to the time of her disappearance:
11:30 A. M. — Left her home at 108 East Seventy-ninth street, New York, telling her mother she intended to buy a new dress.
12:00 Noon. — Bought a box of candy at Fifth avenue and Fifty-ninth street.
2:00 P. M. — Bought a book at Brentano's and had it charged, altho she had between $20 and $30 in her purse when she left her home two hours and a half earlier.
2:45 P. M. — Met a girl friend at Fifth avenue, near Thirtieth street.
2:50 P. M. — ? ? ? ? ?

NEW YORK, Dec. 16. — Five years ago this week Miss Dorothy Arnold vanished so completely that no detective in the world has been able to discover a clew to her whereabouts or her fate.

"What happened to Dorothy Arnold?" is a question that has been asked in every house where newspapers printed in any language are read.

For answer such men as William J. Flynn, now head of the United States Secret Service; Sir E. R. Henry, chief of Scotland Yard; William J. Burns, George S. Dougherty, former deputy police commissioner in charge of the New York detectives; Joseph A. Faurot, present chief of detectives, and Lieut. Grant Williams, who as the director of the New York police department's bureau of missing persons, has investigated thousands of strange disappearances, give the reply that they are at a loss for a way to fathom the mystery.

If Dead, Where Is Body?

Dorothy Arnold was last seen, so far as is known to the police or other investigators, at Fifth avenue and Thirtieth street, on Monday, Dec. 12, 1910. The time was 3 o'clock in the afternoon or a few minutes earlier.

The aged father of the missing girl, who has spent many thousands of dollars to search every city in the world by wireless, cable, telegraph, telephone, mail and detectives, wears as a silent answer to the query of Dorothy's fate a wide mourning band on his hat, a mourning necktie and a suit of black. He is a wealthy importer of French and Russian perfumes.

"She is dead," he said to reporters this week.

"But where is her body?" is the question asked by trained investigators.

"Any morgue keeper in the entire country would at once take notice of a woman dressed in expensive lingerie or clothing," Lieutenant Williams says, in discussing the statistics of his bureau, which show that on the average one woman a year is left unidentified.

Description of Dorothy Arnold.

Dorothy Arnold on Dec. 12, 1910, when she went away from her home, was 26 years old. She was about 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighed in the neighborhood of 140 pounds.

She was of striking appearance; her complexion was bright, her hair was dark brown and her eyes were grayish blue.

She wore a tailor-made blue serge suit and a black velvet hat trimmed with two silk roses.

The hat had inscribed in its lining the name of a fashionable milliner. Similarly, the name of the maker was embroidered on the tailor-made underwear which the young woman wore.

In her hand bag Miss Arnold carried about $20 or $30; yet she asked the clerk in Park & Tilford's Fifth avenue and Fifty-ninth street store to charge a pound of candy, and requested the cashier in Brentano's store to send her father the bill for a book — "An Engaged Girl's Sketches" — which she bought within a few hours after she was last seen by her mother.

Search Made All Over World.

The search for Dorothy Arnold has never been equaled for thoroughness. Here was the case of a mature young woman, highly educated, to a degree literary, and physically strong enough to balk any attempt at kidnaping. She was not in the habit of "slumming" or doing "settlement work," but, on the contrary, was more inclined to afternoon visits to such places as Sherry's restaurant and the Plaza tearoom. Her evenings were mostly spent in the company of her relatives or near friends. For almost six weeks following the disappearance of Dorothy the search was conducted along "confidential" lines. Her father, the descendant of a proud New England family, which traces its lineage back to the landing of the Pilgrims, loathed publicity. Her mother, a Canadian by birth and highly sensitive, equally abhorred the thought of letting the prying eyes of the public get a glimpse into the family circle.

The Man in Her Life.

There was a man in Dorothy Arnold's life. A few months preceding her disappearance the "affair" was such that it became a matter of family discussion. The first act after the young woman failed to respond to advertisements inserted in the personal columns of newspapers was to communicate by wireless with steamships bound for Europe. Then detectives were sent to Pittsburgh, Pa., to find out where George S. Griscom, a 44-year-old engineer, was staying at that time.

Griscom was in Florence, Italy. And there Mrs. Arnold hastened to confront him with the story of her daughter's disappearance. Even at the time of her sailing, the Arnolds were determined not to take any more persons than absolutely necessary into their confidence. Arnold had written to his brother in Germany a letter saying that a "terrible calamity had befallen the family," but they "did not wish to spoil their Christmas holiday by telling about it." As Mrs. Arnold sailed her husband cabled briefly to his brother telling him to furnish her with funds if needed.

Like the public, Dorothy Arnold's uncle and aunt got the first intimation of what had happened on the morning of Jan. 26, 1911, when the story of the disappearance appeared in all the newspapers of the leading cities of the United States and Europe. Deputy Police Commissioner Flynn, now chief of the Secret Service, on the day before told Arnold that his detectives had to have the aid of the newspapers. The "confidential" search had failed.

At the same time that the reporters were asked to aid the family. Word of Mrs. Arnold's visit to Florence and her meeting there with Griscom was kept a secret. "She is too sick to be seen," was the only explanation offered when reporters inquired for her. Two days later, however, it became known that George S. Griscom "was the man in the case." It then became known that the young woman less than two months before she left her family had been in Boston, where, according to the records of a loan company, she had obtained $60 for a quantity of jewelry that had been pawned.

George Griscom was Boston at the time, but if he and Dorothy met there at the time the information was never communicated to the public. It was admitted Dorothy on her return to New York rented a mail box in the general postoffice and that she quite regularly corresponded with Griscom. The letters she wrote him were in his possession the day Mrs. Arnold and her elder son John, saw him in Florence. As she demanded them John Arnold felled Griscom with a blow on the jaw. Then a promise was exacted from Griscom that he would never reveal the contents of the letters. Griscom has until this day kept his word as far as known.

Mrs. Arnold, on entering the lower bay on the steamship Pannonia, received a message from her attorneys and her two sons, John and D. Hinckley, met her at the pier. On their advice she declined to go into any details of her daughter's disappearance. John Arnold, in an interview with the then District Attorney Whitman, six days after the arrival of his mother from Italy, said he was convinced that Dorothy had committed suicide. He did not suggest that she might have met with foul play, nor did he ask for a grand jury investigation of her disappearance.

House in Pittsburgh Raided.

That the family lawyers at first shared with the detectives the belief that Dorothy Arnold bought a box of candy and a book with the intention of passing away time while riding on a railroad train was evident some time after the investigation was under way when John Keith, head of the Arnolds' legal representatives, said he had searched a sanitarium on the outskirts of Pittsburgh which was raided in April, 1913, by the Pittsburgh County authorities, who charged its proprietor with the death of a young woman who had been missing from her home for nearly a year.

A few days after this raid and the mention in the newspapers of Dorothy's name in connection with the investigation of the place, Arnold sent for the reporters and invited them to go thru his East Seventy-ninth street house from cellar to garret. He repeated his belief that his daughter would never be found.

The police records show that of the women who are daily reported as missing there are but few who, under any compulsion, give up the luxuries of homes so that they may wander about as fancy dictates. Some go away because of quarrels, others because they tire of being "pampered" by indulgent mothers, brothers and sisters, and others want to get away from the scene of some lovers' quarrel.

Dorothy Arnold was a girl of romantic ideas. She incorporated some of these in manuscripts, hoping to have them published. She was a graduate of Bryn Mawr, and after her schooling she began writing novels — which were never published.

——————

Did Dorothy Arnold take her family into her confidence? Has everything been told? Has any evidence been found to point to the theory that she is dead? Could she have been murdered and her body disposed of? Was there a suggested motive for murder? Did she by act or word suggest a reason for leaving home? These questions have been asked by the leading detectives of the world.

—Saturday Blade, Chicago, Dec. 18, 1915, p. 3.

Note: The case was never solved.

What Do People See, Feel When They're Hanged?

1878

The Sensations of Hanging.

Some time since, says an exchange, the American press was discussing the question: "Does it hurt a man to hang him?" The conclusion arrived at seemed to be that hanging was a painless death.

Now some of the English magazines are speculating on the sensations of a hanged person, and they almost make out that hanging is rather a pleasurable and desirable operation. One person who was hung, to all intents and purposes, and afterwards revived, declared that he felt no pain, his only sensations were of fire before his eyes, which changed first to black and then to sky-blue. These colors are even a source of pleasure. A culprit who was revived when almost dead, complained that, having lost all pain in an instant, he had been taken from a light of which the charm defied description. Another criminal, who escaped through the breaking of the halter, said that, after a second or two of suffering, a light appeared, and across it a most beautiful avenue of trees."

All agree that the uneasiness is quite momentary, that a pleasurable feeling succeeds, that colors of various hues start up before the eyes, and that these having been gazed at for a limited space, the rest is oblivion. If this is the case, murderers may regret the law that consigns them to a living tomb instead of treating them to an entertaining chromatic exhibition.