Indianapolis Times, Volume 38, Number 322, Indianapolis, Marion County, 19 April 1927 — Page 4

PAGE 4

The Indianapolis Times ROX W. HOWARD, President. BOYD GURLEY, Editor. WM. A. MAYBORN. Bus. Mgr. Member of the Seripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance • * • Client of the United Press and the NEA Service • * * Member of the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Published daily except Sunday by Indianapolis Times Publishing Cos., 2t4-220 W. Maryland St., Indianapolis * • • Subscription Rates: Indianapolis—Ten Cents a Week. Elsewhere—Twelve Cents a Week ♦ • * PHONE—MA in 3500.

No law shall be passed restraining the freeinterchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write or print freely, on any subject whatever.—Constitution of Indiana.

Why These Changes? Surely Mayor Duvall owes to the people of this city some explanation of the amazing and far reaching changes he made in his official boards. Without previous notice and with only a hurried message delivered by his brother-in-law, the mayor has removed the members of the one board which has retained any measure of public confidence. There is no disguising the facts. Mayor Duvall did not want Roy Shaneberger, Lem Trotter or Oren Hack and he fired them as unceremoniously as he might have discharged a janitor caught asleep at his post. He did not want them in charge of the public works of this city and he must have had a reason for not wanting them. These men happen to have independent means and it is always considered something of a safeguard of public interest t ohave men on these boards who are beyond the personal temptation that is always involved in the handling of vast sums of public money. If these men have been negligent, if they have betrayed, public interest, if they have favored contractors and politicians, it is the clear duty of the mayor to tell the people about it and not merely to announce such changes. It is true that beginning a very few weeks ago the mayor has taken power away from these members. They were not consulted when the mayor suddenly changed the city engineer and placed there a man who was labeled as the political follower of the Armitages. They had nothing to do with that change and it is also true that they have refused to follow the advice of this engineer when it came to the use of asphalt on city paving. Asphalt, say these board members, is more costly than concrete and they have taken the position that the people who pay the bills should have the choice of materials on their own particular streets. The new engineer has by recommendation and otherwise endeavored to force the use of asphalt wherever possible. The Armitage family is said to be interested in the sale of asphalt to the city. It may be only a coincidence that the discharge of these board members came on the very day when there was filed in the Criminal Court by the prospecting attorney and special prosecutors an affidavit which declared that the grand jury was “engaged in an investigation pertaining to certain alleged misconduct of certain public officials; that one of said officials was John L. Duvall.” That makes a matter of public record the fact that the grand jury had investigated the mayor. Does the mayor believe that his new members, one of whom is his business associate, will be better qualified to protect public interests than Shaneberger, Hack and Trotter? That might be an explanation were it not for the fact that his first announcement named the present chief of police to take the place of Shaneberger, that the chief had accepted the place, which pays much less salary, and that he se . eral hours later. That suggests strongly that the mayor was anxious to get rid of these board members and that he preferred most any one to the men who have for fifteen months helped him retain some contact with the substantial interests of the city and who were always used as proof that the mayor had outstanding men as his advisers. Surely the mayor owes to the public some statement of what h% hopes to obtain from this new board of public works that he did not get from the men he so unceremoniously and so crudely separated from the public service. Will the new board be more honest? Then he should tell where .this board failed in integrity. Will the new board be more alert In the public interest? Then he should tell where these men were negligent. Will the new board be less amenable to the influence of politicians and contractors? Then he should tell the people where these members favored their friends and failed to protect citizens. Unless such an explanation is made, the people will undoubtedly supply their own. And when they do they will not forget that the mayor went to the Legislature to a law that would prevent the people from removing him by the city manager route before he had served out his term.

Boston, U. S. A. Something really ought to be done about Boston. That strange city is busy again suppressing hooks. A few days ago “Elmer Gantry,” Sinclair Lewis’ excited adventure into the church world, was put under the ban. Now the verboten sign Is hung over Theodore Dreiser’s “American Tragedy." Once in a long while, somewhere In the world, someone writes a great novel, a novel calculated to contribute to an understanding of life. Theodore Dreiser did this when he wrote “An American Tragedy.” Without any cheap motive, without even an eye on book shop returns—it isn’t of the best seller type, although It is a book that may be selling many years—Dreiser put down a story that touches the very heart of life. It is a tale of an average boy, growing into an average man, a boy and man that might be Russian or English or Greek as well as American: a boy and man, victim of his surroundings and his own inherent weakness. A boy and man we all know, one of whom each of us has intimate knowledge. Every so often we read in the newspapers the story of a murder. From such news stories we sometimes learn a little, sometimes nothing at all, of the deep underlying reason for the crime. Dreiser’s novel is only the story of a murder case, but it isn’t the surface story. He has delved deep into the motive and how the motive was built up he has examined the human elements involved, the structure of the society surrounding them. And then he has told the story. He has told it to support no theory of his own, to offer no argument. He has just told the story. And when you’ve read it, you know more about mankind, more about yourself, certainly more about murder, than you knew before. K Boston newspapers will continue to present murr stories to their leaders day by day as murfe occur in that vicinity, or within reach, of tele-

graph wires. They will present the same sort of details that seem to have shocked the police censors of literature in that city. And there will be no objection, as there should be none. But Boston citizens will not be permitted to read the one murder story of recent years that makes crime understandable,, that aids in any way to make murder more nearly avoidable. They can not read "An American Tragedy.” And that is a Boston tragedy, from which Eoston should save herself. , After Seven Long Years When you and I are confronted with a difficult and unpleasant question, our human tendency is to postpone a decision as long as possible and then to pass the buck if we can. The venerable members of the United States Supreme Court showed yesterday they are as human as you and I by doing that very thing in the famous and important Claire Furnace case. The Claire Furnace case is important because it arose out of the Federal trade commission’s attempt, at Congress’ bidding, to establish, if possible, some of the responsibility for the high cost of living. The attempt began eight years ago, when the commission ordered companies of the iron and steel industry to submit monthly reports going into great detail about their business. These reports were to form the basis of public information on the industry. Evidently the commission believed full information about the price and costs of iron and steel would tell the public a lot about the cost of living. Perhaps the steel companies thought so, too, for twenty-two of them, headed by the Claire Furnace Company, went into the District of Columbia courts on June 12, 1920, and got an injunction against the commission. The district Supreme Court sus-' tained it. So the case came to the United States Supreme Court four years ago. All this time that court has 1 been deliberating it, having heard arguments twice. Meantime the trade commission has been held up not only in the steel investigation, but in all others legally similar, and the public thirst to know who was holding up the high cost of living has gone un- i satisfied. The Supreme Court, confronted by the joint and unpleasant possibilities of deciding either that j the Government has great power over private business in the public interest, or that it has no power to get facts and figures of great public importance, has decided at last that the case \yas brought wrongly from the beginning. Injunction was the wrong method, it held. The commission should have gone to the attorney general and asked him to issue a writ of mandamus 1 compelling the companies to give the information sought, and on this argument could have been held all the way up to the Supreme Court. The court has refused on a technicality, and after seven years, to decide just how far the Government bureaus may probe private business in the public interest. And as Justice Mcßeynolds said, in a dissenting opinion, it is, or should have been, far too late to let such a technicality intervene. Snoops, My Dear! Prohibition on eartli t good will to men. A citizen snooper in every block is the proposed contribution of the Church Service Association, Washington, D. C. Window watchers, back porch listeners, sitting room sleuths, the association to turn 15,000 of them loose in the national capital, each sworn to sneak, 1 sniff, snoop, snook, search and smell out all prohibition violations among their neighbors. To this we have come. And surely, it will disgust all reasonable men and women, whether or not they favor the Eighteenth Amendment. • That prohibition should be enforced, no pne can gainsay; that it should be enforced in any such manner as this is intolerable. Better to have a Na-1 tion of soaks than a Nation of sneaks. And among church leaders there should be a feeling not only of disgust, but of danger. It sroopery Is to have the sanction of the churches, then evil days confront us. The church will never guide the world by indorsing an organization which Judas Iscariot, himself, might well hesitate to join. Your Opportunity June 21 can become the new Independence day for Indianapolis if the people choose to throw off the chains of political misrule and take charge of their own government. On that day the people will vote on adopting the city manager form of government. Under that system, partisan politics are abolished and those who differ on national issues can j vote together to get what they want from city gov-' ernment without that traditional fear of being called j “bolters.” Under that system, business methods will replace political manipulation. Other cities which have suffered as Indianapolis suffers from “boss” rule and political misconduct have found their freedom. In every one of these cities which have adopted this form of government, the plain ordinary citizen who wants results and not a job in the government has found relief. On the plain and*evident principle that nothing could be much worse than the present city government, most people would probably approve the change. But the proposed system has behind it the experience of other cities and the uniform record of ; getting results. However, the mere fact that an election has been called will not give the relief. The politicians of both parties will fight, more or less openly, this change. They like the present system because it permits them to use their power for politics and politics enables them to use the public funds. for partisan ends. The people must organize. They must determine that they will vote. They must, most of all, take every precaution to see that their votes are counted and that their will is registered in ballots.

THE INDIANAPOLIS TIMES

' Says: Smith’s Record Is Better Reply to Marshall * Than He Could Possibly Write

By M. E. Tracy Governor Smith's reply to Charles G. Marshall is exactly what should have been expected. It is free from quibbling and evasion. It will convince fair-minded people that there is nothing in his religious views to disqualify him for any office within the gift of this country. The point is. of course, that fair-minded people did not need to be convinced. Governor Smith's record is a better reply to Marshall’s argument than anything he could possibly write. So, too, is the record of thousands of Roman Catholics, who have held high offices in this country, who have commanded i‘s armies and who have given then lives in its service. The fact that suph records have failed to settle the issue offers gloomy proof that those who raised it in the first place, and who are keeping it hlive, are not amenable to reason. It is satisfying to suppose that this exchange of letters has lifted "an ancient controversy out of the muck of vulgar prejudice,” as the New York World suggests, but it requires a far stretch of the imagination to believe that such men as Hiram W. Evans of J. Frank Norris are any readier to vote for Governor Smith than they were before. Made of Muck The issue of whether a Roman Catholic should be excluded from high public office because, of his religion, was made of muck to begin with, and remains muck, no matter how cleverly it may be presented. Marshall’s letter was quite the most dignified utterance on the subject that has been made fc>r some time. It was couched in elegant English and was well documented. It breathed a tone of respectability which lifted it above the commonplace shrieks and demagogery which one is accustomed to,associate with the issue. For these reasons, it struck popular fancy between the eyes and left Governor Smith no clio>ce but to reply. Instead of lifting the issue out of the muck, however, Mr. Marshall merely painted the muck in deceptive colors. Rooted in Narrowness There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States or in the Declaration of Independence, or in the Constitution of any State, or in any of the great doctrines on which j this republic was founded to exclude j Roman Catholics from office. Such being the case, it is neces- | sary to look beyond the law of the land, beyond the spirit of patriotism, | beyond the original concepts of : Americanism, to discover why the I issue was raised, or who raised it. ' Asa matter of common sense, the | issue is rooted in fanaticism, nar- I rowness and intolerance, whether j presented in highbrow phrases or whispered in gutter slang. Label Not Needed The bulk of the American people long since ceased to demand a sectarian label as a guarantee of good citizenship. There are sections, however. in which the label is still de-‘ manded. Beams and Motes • Paradoxical as it may seem, those j who cry loudest for a complete separation of church and State and in condemning Catholics on the ground that they oppose such separation are themselves the worst offenders when it comes to tangling politics yith religion. Where you find anti-evolution sentiment you will find anti-Catholic sentiment, and where you find people ready to invoke the law to sustain some creeds, you will find them I ready to invoke political power to exclude others. Nothing Changed Not pausing to discuss some other ' factors which have an important | bearing on his candidacy, such as j prohibition and Tammany, Governor Smith faces about the same character and amount of opposition on account of his religion that he did before Marshall’s letter and his reply to it were written. Not only will the fanatics con- j tinue to be fanatical, but even Mr. Marshall, in spite of his academic; attitude, refuses to see much in the Covernor'3 frank and able rejoinder, ' except failure to deal with what ' other men have said, and what the i Governor declares he does not construe as binding upon him. Time for Thinking Meanwhile, if Coolidge seeks a third consecutive term and if the Democrats nominated Smith, the country will face two novel Issues. A third term is opposed to American tradition, though for some inscrutable reason this docs not appear to disturb many people. The elevation of a Roman Catholic to the presidency violates. no American tradition, though for just as inscrutable reasons the thought of it seems to disturb quite a few people. The time is obviously right for some serious thinking in this country. Who were the first and second wives of Napoleon Bonaparte? First, the young Creole widow, Josephine de Beauharnais: second. Maria Lauisa, daughter of Emperor Francis I of Austria. Who burned Lawrence. Kan., during the Civil War, and how much damage was done? I,awrenee was burned on Aug. 21, IS<}3, by Quantrell and a band of who massacred abput 125 persons and burned about seventyftve dwelling, as well as some other building. '

Bergere Has Her Own China Gesture: Marsolais and Marlow Are Real Hits

A China gesture ail her own and yet remindful of another successful gesture. That's Valerie Bergere. The gesture of Valerie Bergere is called "Chinese Compensation,” by Carl McCullough. Produced by Miss Bergere. As Florence Reed has not appeared here in "The Shanghai Gesture” there is that element of new-

ness about "Chinese Compensation" with Valerie Bergere. It was part of my work on this paper to go to New York last fail, and there ! saw Reed in "The Shanghai Gesture.” Yester(l y afternoon I saw Miss Bergere and her company in a vaudeville playlet called “Chinese Compensation.” Her voice as Mme. China Carlo was mighty like that of Miss

Valerie Bergere

Reed as Mme. Goddam in the “Gesture.” The motive, that of revenge because of a bad sex experience, is the theme of both the play and the sketch. Both have bad old wonted in 'em thirsting for revenge. Boll! have great acting (real theater) cn the part of the stars. While Mi::: Reed had excellent support, that of Miss Bergere completely fails. The credit of the success of "Chinese Compensation” goes to the Madame conception of Miss Bergere and the man who wrote it. You will find the grand gesture of Miss Reed behind this playlet. She paved the way, I take it, for this sort of thing on the stage. Miss Bergere in the playlet gives a performance which is commanding. It is gorgeous theater. If another company of “The Shanghai Gesture" is ever attempted then Miss Bergere is the triumph great this week at Keith’s. She deserves better support than she has. The Four Hamel Sisters sing and play several musical instruments. Their real value is that - they present Stross, formerly with Sousa's Band, in the cornet solos from the Pit. Act pleases. They do a good “Black Bottom.” Dixie Hamilton sings many songs. I was not impressed. Audience said 1 was wrong. Eileen Dove, with her eccentric way, is the making of the offering of Mitchell arjd Dove. Bert Errol again makes the sad mistake of trying to talk to the audience. Errol. I do not like that stunt of your wise-cracking. You ruined a good act yesterday when I was present by making certain remarks about the heat and the like. Roby and Gould have poor comedy, but their last song number is

At 10:45 Tonight National vaudeville artists’ week, which was ushered into theaters all over the country on Easter Sunday, has brought to Indianapolis seven days of augmented entertainment. One of the special features of the gala occasion comes tonight with the big jubilee at the Palace Theater planned by all local vaudeville houses. At 10:45 p. m. the Palace doors will be opened to the participants of the midnight frolic. Managers of the local vaudeville houses have cooperated in making arrangements for this show. Extra corps of ushers will be used to handle the crowds. Leading the fifty artists who will contribute their talents to the benefit show for the N. V. A. sick and benefit fund is Will Mahoney, comedian of wide reputation. He will serve as master of ceremonies and will direct the antics of the acts.

No Chance for Progress

■By Walter D. Ilicktnaii

1 a winner and a real one. Will MaI honey is here again. Was here earj Her in the season. It was necessary | for me to leave the theater before ; Mahoney appeared, as well as Harry ILa Vail and Sister. You know what j I think of Mahoney. He is a great ! artist, judged by his work earlier in the season. At Keith's all week. SPEAKING OF SOME REAL STOCK WORK The success of any presentation of "Whispering Wires" depends upon the way that the actors play the parts of Ann Cartwright and of Montgomery Stockridge, The Borkell presentation of this mystery play wins, because these two parts are

correctly cast. Ann is p 1 a y c and by Bernice Marsolais. It. is with pleasure that I record that this woman conies into her very own this week at English’s. She has been "growing" in artistry and knowledge of the theater. In other words she has been working and studying. Ann is a ventral figure cf this mystery story and yet it tekes the most

. hI Ss!9uHEßßß&sil

Uobfri St. Clair

careful acting to keep this character one of mystery. That Miss Marsolais does with real artistry. She knows her character. She knows how to sustain mystery while creating a character. Quite an accomplishment. Miss Marsolais. Os course the character of old man Stockridge, played by J. F. Marlow, dominates Hhe entire play. , Ife is alive in the first act and the center of the plot. Even when he is dead, he is the center of all the mystery. Marlow knows his character both ns to makeup as well as theater. He. makes thin old man a living and powerful character. I disagree romewjiat with the way he played his death, hut T am sure that reflection upon the “cause” of his death will cause Marlow to remedy this minor defect. And yet the fact is Mr. Marlow is giving a dramatic characterization this week which one would expect jn a company presenting this play in the regular legitimate season. L have a rule not to tell the story of a mystery play and I see no reason for changing. I.arry Sullivan docs a fino bit of work as the “trouble maker.” but lie should study telephones a little more, especially when lie is supposed to be an expert “fixer.” The cast has the services of Robert Sit. Clair. Jean Oliver, Tom Pawley, Milton Byron. Herbert Dobbins, Sidney Jerome. Idabelle Arnold and William V. Hull. Notice this sact —"Whispering Wires” has the best sets that Charles Berkell through his staff has ever given Indianapolis. “Whispering Wires” is an all-week winner at English's this week. V REAS. VARIETY BIEL AT THE PALACE In keeping with the spirit of X. V. A. week, a period each year in which the theatrical profession devotes Us time to the provision for the future of its dependent members, the Palace has built up a bill for the first half that is of a "high standard of entertainment worth. The acts are all equally entertaining. Their themes differ, but they all have the same thing to offer, a few minutes each in which they make you enjoy yourself. Jimmy Lyons conic on all bedecked with medals. His appearance resembles what one of the soldiers would look like in a burlesque version of "The Chocolate Soldier.” Anyway, he has on a loud uniform and proceeds to live up to his clothes by indulging in a rapid-fire monologue In which he discusses many things both serious and otherwise. Lyons is a capable

performer and knows how to get attention, whether it be by some bit of foolery or by a sudden reverse of form to a serious problem that is upon the minds of every one. Billy Farrell and company offer a contrast between the interpretation given by vaudeville performers of a few years ago and the modern song and dance team. Farrell has worked out the act nicely and everything goes smoothly. There are four people, including Farrell and his partner and his father and partner, who offer us some bits of years ago. Quinn, Binder and Roy, two men and a woman, have a song and dance act that gets across nicely. All three are pleasing performers. The Cordon and Ilealy company offer a short sketch with a young married couple's troubles as the central theme and mix it up with dances by a group of dancing girls in the act. The comedy offered by Gordon probably is the best of this offering, but the whole act is entertaining. Tyler and St. Clair open playing a xylophone together. These two have the knack of getting their personalities across along with their music and as a result arc well liked. Bill includes a photoplay, "London,” with Dorothy G'ish, also news rod end comedy. At the Faiacs today and tomorrow. (By the Observer.) AM NQW SPEAKING OF HAZEL GREEN AND COMPANY I saw a woman yesterday afternoon at the 4:20 o’clock at the Lyric nearly do the impossible— stop the show to a real stop. Her name is Hazel Green, and she is surrounded by a six-piece jazz or-

ehestra, two male dancers and a woman dancer. It is the showmanship of Miss Green plus iter personality that causes this act to stop all proceedings. She knows how to “feed” her company to an audience to that point of keeping up interest as well as building it. She lets a chap do the "b Ia c k bottom,” which causes the act to become more of a "wow” than ever. When the

Lillian Faulkner

music gets too warm for mere word.-. Miss Green admits that "you can't keep a fat gal down,” and she starts some hoofing that registers. The act is built for speed and melody. Here is a real winner, lias a right to win. Gene Austin, the second that he conies on the stage in his well-man-nered way, is recognized. He is a maker of phonograph records and carrcs his own audience, so to speak, with him. He sings in a quiet sort of way. His tones arc good, lie knows what songs to sing. And he sings them, and how. He wins because he starts out with a reputat'on and lives up to it. I wish somebddy would push that piano more to the center of the stage at the Lyric for individual artists. Austin loses a great deal by permitting his piano to be placed too much to one side of the stage. An artist must show himself to the entire audience, and the present placing of the piano for such acts at the Lyric 'is all wrong. A kindly suggestion. Try it out. The stage is surely large enough. Bobby Carbons and company use the song. “Kiss Me Again,” both as the title and the reason of the act. Br.rbicr, Sims and company have a small town skit at a railroad depot. A small town girl has a chance to impersonate Gloria Swanson. Mary Bickford and others. The woman has personality. Johnson and Johnson stage their act on a Mississippi beat. Both are clever. This act has some merit as

. APRIL 19, 1927

CVT\ oAuction . Jt-tt iCI UJMilion ,>l- - Major Suit Over Minor in Case of Equal Strength,

The pointer for today is: With a strong four-card suit and a stronger five-card suit, bid the major when one is a major and the other a minor; when both arc majors or both minors, bid (lie stronger. These hands held by Dealer were given yesterday: First game, love all; what should be bid initially? No. I No. 2 A e-9- A-Q-IIM A-Q-KM A-K*Q*7-5 O 7*5 O 4*3 ?* A.E.Q.M £>•< ” No. t No. 4 A A.Q.KMf A.9.6.M A-K-Q-l A-7-5 O *•#•* o A**a * 6 * * *•* My answer slip reads: No. 1 Dealer should bid one Heart. No. 2 Dealer should bid one Heart. No. 3 Dealer should bid one Spade. No. 4 Dealer should bid one Spade. My reasons in support of these bids are: No. 1. it is impossible to tell whether the Major or the Minor is going to work better: but the Minor can be bid and it may not be safe to bid a card suit when the time for a second bid arrives. No. 2. Between two Majors, the higher-valued Spade should be bid first unless there is too great a discrepancy in strength. With this hand, the Hearts being both longer and stronger, that suit should be named. No. 3. ith a Major two-suiter, the suits being of equal length, the higher-valued Spade should be bid first even with the Heart slightly stronger. With two Majors of the same length and nearly equal strength, name the higher-valued first. No. 4. Three Aces make a No Trumper. but it is not wise to bid No Trump wtih a hand containing a defenseless suit and a five-card Major strong enough to bid. Today’s hands arc stinposed to he held by Dealer; score Jove-all, first game. Me. t No. 9 A ?•* A a-k.q <2 A-J-M C-2 O 4-3-2 0 7-6-3 A-K-Q $ Q-IC-9-54 No. 7 No. 8 A-K-Q-J-9-8 4 None <£> A-Q-7-8 y A-K-Q-7-0-3-9 O A-K-Q O A-K-Q <* None <-6-3 Bridge answer slip of April !9:^_ No. 5 Dealer should. No. and Dealer should No. 7 Dealer should No. 8 Dealer should , Copyright, John F. Dilie Company, '

Gets Street Lights and Speeds Paving Repairs.

Arthur Haufier, assistant city engineer, today said two additional lights would be turned on at Massachusetts Ave. and Noble St., following receipt of a complaint to Mr. Fixit that the locality was dangerously dark. Haufier declared part of the lights, turned off through error, would be on again this week. To A, G.: Your criticism that the corner at Massachusetts Ave. and St Clair St. is a dangerous intersection is wcl! taken. The board of safety realizes that and already has taken steps to remedy the situation, according to City Electrician William Griffis. Griffls said the safety board considering some means of taining money to erect the sign. The budget apppropriation for electric signals was eliminated this year and has hampered the city. O. D. Haskett, safety board president, asserted himself vigorously on the budget matter, dedaring. "I'm going to see to it < that the budget stays as we ap. prove it. after it has been trimmed us much as possible. If they cut out money next year they will do it over my protest." ( * Mr. Taxpayer: A. L. Middleton, chief inspector, has taken your complaint on the condition of Rookwood and Hinsley Aves. He informed the Columbia Construction Company. They answered that rain hud delayed work, but men are on the job and will he there for several days. well us novelty. Lillian Faulkner has a manikin act which is different from all the others. Her manikins represent movie stars. Holds interest of any audience v.lth case. I missed the Dallas trio because I arrived too late. At the Lyric all week. Other theaters today offer: "Fashions for Women," at the Apollo; Kiddie revue, at the Uptown; “The Rambling Ranger,” at the Isis; "Special Delivery," at the Ohio; "Dean C'esto," at the Colonial: Hours," at the Circle, and at tiie Mutual. 'ii,,. mi. What became of tiie only child of Napoleon Bonaparte? Napoleon Francois Charles Joseph • Bonaparte, Duke of Reichstadt, the, only child of Napoleon I and Empress Maria Louisa, died at the age , of ft years from an overindulgencel r violent exercises. M