SNAPSHOTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIII, Issue 10565, 26 January 1895, Page 6

SNAPSHOTS.

The juvenile artist who omits to label fiv “’T'his is a kow" must not taxe offence when hia essay ia taken for a representation of a table. Similarly the euitor of the Star has no reason to compiain if people condemn him for neglecting *“ ose bogus cable messages of his with the words: " This is a Goak.’’ ’ It is as though a staid citizen, with no known penchant for practical joking, were audaeniy to develop a mania for knocking rue hat from tho head of every one he met in the streets. The joke ia exquisite, when one is prepared for it; but j 1?? upon the community, so to speak, and the community will retaliate by sending the joker to Lyttelton or Sunnyside to “ rusticate.” Those invented cable despatches were excruciatingly funny when you knew they were bogus; hut the ordinary cable despatch is such a queer production that, unless people were duly warned, they had no means of distinguishbogus from the real article. After all, however, 'tie a poor and precarious sort of humour that consists mainly of invention; and the story of the boy who cried “Wolf” is only one of many that could be told to illustrate tho danger of that sort of " fun.”

Verily the Press of to-day has some strange developments. Ia Saa Francisco, where the daily papers are published on seven .days of the week, and where there is more immorality to the square yard than in any other modern city of the same size, the newspapers recently condemned, as grossly immoral, the new drama The Second Mrs Tanqueray, Mrs Kendal, who had been performing in the “ title role ” of that play, thereupon fell foul of the Press. She said to an interviewer“ Such newspapers! Such news! First column, * Sunday’s sermon,’ Second column, a medical advertisement, ‘Lost manhood,’ whatever that may moan. Third column, Mrs Tanqueray ia immoral.’ Fourth column, ‘ Husband ranawayfrom bis wife—listof the illegitimate children.’ Fifth column, 1 Full account of a prize fight.’ ” As to the action of the papers and the public towards the piece in which she had played the leading part, Mrs Kendal sapiently remarked: "They stoned Jesus because they did not understand Him and know Him.” If that means anything, it moans that somehow, in Mrs Kendal’s mind, the " Second Mrs T.” ia a great moral teacher who is sadly misunderstood. That, c£ course, has yet to bo demonstrated; but I must confess that the lady made a good point against the purists of the Californian Press.

The everlasting question of tho tendency of the modern drama towards nastiness was under discussion iu London when the last mail left. The Times had opened its columns to correspondence on the subject, which was led off by that well-known and respectable parsonage “ X.Y.Z.” This writer says:—" From the immoralities of The Second Mrs Tanqueray, relieved as the play was by the fine acting of Mrs Patrick Campbell, to the deadly dull and not always moral vulgarities of The Masqueraders was a descent; from the latter to the sordid theme of John-a-Breams is' a further fall; and who can say that even now we have reached tho bottom of tho abyss?”’ He goes on to describe John-a-Breams as “ a play finely staged, of feeble construction, in parts well written, but with a plot of tho lowest type of sickly immorality. Tho play is centred round tho love for each other of a partially reclaimed harlot .and an opium drinking sot. The curtain falls in the last act upon the harlot and the sot hand in hand drifting into a future of married life of, I should say, hardly doubtful misery.”

’ These- sentiments were, re-echoed by several other correspondents, one of whom declared. that. men do not care for “ social plays ’’ of the stamp described, and that the people who crowd to the theatres to witness ouch productions are “ the jfoung wives and daughters of the upper and middle classes.” This statement, if true, is either a serious reflection on the wivhs and daughters aforesaid, or a high testimonial to the “ social play.” If we iu Christchurch found our women folk approving of anything whose morality or propriety was questioned, we should say: "To the pure all things are pure,” 'and argue that only prurient prudes could take exception to the matter under discussion. Mr Beerbohm Tree, in a letter to the Times, maintains with truth that " this is a generation which has, in a dramatic sense, outgrown the short skirts of * the young lady of fifteen/ ” and he concludes with the pertinent questions :—“Are latter day purists to impugn Greek tragedy on the score of its dealing unstipplingly with the eternal problems of life? la the literary dandy to be permitted to pass a vote of censure on Scripture because, forsooth, Magdalen was forgiven ?” Hero I will leave the subject, merely remarking that “ literary dandy ” is good, and the phrase might well bo made to stick to those Press writers who try to pose as exponents of Old Morality and Pharisaism.

The Galician folk are in a quandarynob those of North-western Spain, but the people of Eastern Austria-Hungary. In that happy land "twenty thousand sentences for drunkenness are pronounced every year.” What a chance our prohibitionists are missing! The local authorities declare that the feasts and family drinking bouts, over which the custom of a thousand years has rolled, and they are still as wot as ever, cannot bo abolished by law. Put the Parliament is trying to do that which cannot bo done. It has decreed that those who tempt others to drink are punishable; also, that all who give or sell drink to persons already "tipsy” are punishable; glso, that if an innkeeper turns a tipsy man out of doors, the inn-keeper is punishable. Hero’s a pretty coil. The Galician who asks his friend to “ look at a dog ” will be a tempter. As for the innkeeper, ha will find himself, every day of his life, between the devil and the deep blue sea. Think of—let us say—a lodge meeting, and the customary "charge your glasses.” Here will be a tempting to drink on a wholesale scale, and a consequent heaping up of logal liability. Surely, in such circumstances, we could heroically set ourselves to spare our own ‘‘double-extra-patent ” apostles of abstaining virtue for the noble purpose of setting the Galicians right.

"What on earth ?” the intelligent reader will be disposed to ask himself, "has Japan got to do with Hawaii-Nei, the kingdom of Queen Liiiuokalana ?” Hero we have, according to a cable message, a rebellion in Hawaii, the Queen placed under surveillance —she must bo used to that sort of thing by this time—and " the Japanese, to the number of 26,000, inclined to side with the Royalists.” One is disposed to think that the stated number is absurdly exaggerated, but the truth is that the Sandwich Islands are very much sandwiched indeed as regards the_ layers of the population. Take approximately 34,000 natives, a fifth of that number of half-castes, 15,000 Chinamen,’ 12,000 Japs, 8000 Portuguese, a thousand each of British, Germans and Americans, with a liberal sprinkling of French, Norwegians and Polynesians, and you have a fairly good idea of the curious mixture,^

I altogether object to the eccentric manner in which certain or the City Council workmen are patching some or the streets with broken metal. I wa ' c “® d one of these artists the other day, ana the conclusion borne in upon me was that he had a fiendish design in view. The drivers of light conveyances and the army 01 cyclists alike endeavour to dodge these river-bed imitations. Buti the spreader of “ rocks ” evidently had a chess-board pattern in his mind, and was carefully endeavouring to imitate it, utterly regardless'as to whether or not there were <• water-tables ” which required to bo failed up. Worse than this, the tailboard of the dray was down, and there wr.s aconstanb dribble of "cocks,” which., scattered themselves in the most impartial man . .Now. in the name of aU that awonderfu ,pnd gracious, what' sort of EOftft?fneadiJ?§k

is this? What will the dribbled stones effect, anyhow, save the calling forth or "curses, not loud, but deep?” And the placed patches of moral, are they not scattered by every wheel that passes, to tho detriment of springs, tho discomfort of passengers, and the utter waste of the ratepayers’ money ? Can we not have soma sort' of intelligence in these things r That is what we pay for, and, apparently, what we may pray for. If, following the stone-laden cart and its eccentric presiding genius, there were another cart laden witn consolidating grit, and presided over by another genius, perhaps the result would bo an improvement. One would like to seethe experiment tried, just fora change, you know. * * ■« *

"Tis not in mortals to command success,” is a good Shaksperian quotation, but Messrs Williamson and Muagrovo certainly deserve it. They hove arrived at a lucky time for themselves and the public generally. Things were becoming deadly monotonous, with not even a stray evangelist or wandering nigger minstrel appearing upon the horizon, and even good old Charlie Hugo or plain Bill Holloway would have been welcome. As it is, we get the heroiclooking Browalow, the mellifluous Tapley, and—Allah be praised Nellie Stewart, with those smiles and glances, those demilades and innuendoes, that play the dickens with a man. Any one of these might have made tho reputation of a leas up-to-date show. But Messrs W. and M. have tho enterprise of a Barnum and the luck of a Haroun-al-Eaaohid. Even their accidents turn out well. The other night the top of a curtain gave way while scene shifting was going on, and the audience was treated to the weird spectacle of house-tops, walls, and palaces flitting mysteriously through empty space. It was almost as good as a play itself and I Would not have missed it if I coUld.

There is a good deal of “ we could an’ we would ” about one resolution of the Conference on Secondary Education that sat in Christchurch this week. I refer to that resolution which informed the Minister of Education that the conference did not understand that he invited its opinion on the general principle of the Endowed Schools Bill, and that it had therefore confined its attention to points of detail. The attitude of tho conference ia fitted to call forth admiration, and but for the extreme modesty shown in discussing this matter in camera, tho remarks of the gentlemen compering the conference would have made investing reading. I can fancy that some of the more ardent defenders of our secondary education system wore eager to splinter a lance with that daring Radical innovator, the Hon W. P. Reeves, wh6 has had the temerity to propose the democratisation of learning. If these fiery spirits could 'but have got at him, he would have been made to repent his rashness in invading the preserves that are sacred to the select few! After their onslaught, the Endowed Schools Bill would hav3 presented a sorry spectacle. But more cautious counsels prevailed discretion once more vindicated its claim to be tho better part of valour, and it was resolved to let the general principle of the measure go unchallenged. The Democracy is safe; but what a narrow escape it has had! The resolution of tho conference says as plainly as though it had used the very words: "We could have made mincemeat of your precious Bill; but no wa can’t believe that you really invited us to do so, we will let it pass.” Thanks, awfully! Flaneur.