Indianapolis Times, Volume 45, Number 232, Indianapolis, Marion County, 6 February 1934 — Page 12

PAGE 12

T3ie Indianapolis Times I (A ICVIHH lIMR|) KEWiipAPr.B) ndl W HOWARD Praldril tA.COTT ROWELL EUltnr MIL D BAKER Bu*ine** Uinigrr I'bon* Riley 6AS|

Member of Called PreM. Srrippo ■ Howard N(*w-pper Allsr><*e. Newspaper Enterprise At*of ;*nnn Newspaper Information Hervire .n<] Au (lit Bureau of Clreulaflon*. Owneii and published dally leirept Monday) by The Indlanapoits Titr.es roblUhlnu Co_ 214-230 Weat Maryland strast iodiacpo!! lod I’rlc* in Uartoa eounfy. 2 eenta a ropy. sew here. 3 eenrs—deitretvd by carrier. 12 eenta a week. MaU aubserlpUon rates In Indiana. S3 a year; outside of Indiana. V eenta a month.

Liukt ant IMe util Pint THfir Own Wap -J

| TUS6CUY. PTB 19J4. HITLER “ÜBER AUSTRIA” iV OAIN the League of Nations Is to be J 1 tested by Are. if it fails this time, there be little left of it for salvage. The deckion rests largely with Great Britain. France aftd Italy, who dominate the league. I The test is Austria and the seeds of anwar. Nazi Germany for many months h4s been violating the sovereignty of her southern neighbor, supporting a Nazi counterrevolution there. Austria has protested to Cfermany and threatens to take the case to .*j League of Nations. Hitler replies that this is a domestic dispute. i Germany's seizure of Austria directly, or indirectly, through a Hitler-controlled Nazi counter-revolution, would increase the probab&ities ol European war. Far from being a issue, it is the very center of the European powder barrel. | This dangerous situation, of course, is precfcely the kind which the League of Nations id supposed to be able to handle—and which iohas failed to handle to date because of the great powers who control the league. -When an earlier test arose in the far east itj the case of Japanese aggression against Chinese Manchuria, the league hod the aid of the United States because a specific American treaty—the nine-power pact—was being violated. Despite American peace leadership, Great Britain and others were able to prevent effective league action. A year later, when Japan quit the league, It was too late. Asa rqsult the league lost much of its prestige and pdwer. At that time we pointed out that Germany wjas being encouraged to follow Japan’s example. This is now occurring. . Great Britain. France and Italy must unite in a sharp warning to Hitler in defense of Aystrian freedom and the league, or be prepfred to take the consequences. LET US BE WARNED TIIE head of the Japanese navy assures the Japanese parliament that in two more yars the effective strength of the Japanese ngvy will outrank that of the American navy. I On the same day, congress considers a nival construction measure which would give this country a fleet superior in hitting power to the famous fleet of 1019, when new ships from the wartime building program Just had gone into service. And a former Japanese cabinet minister bluntly warns Ms fellow-countrymen that if naval programs- are to be dictated by the admirals of the two countries, an unbridled armament race will be inevitable and war will be highly probable. All of which emphasizes the way in which the relations between this nation and Japan have drifted into the danger zone. Not in years has the prospect of war been discussed so openly. Not since the Washington conference has the navy building race been carried on in such grim earnest. The ordinary American, who finds it hard to think of a good reason why he should send his boy half way around the world to die fighting a nation which lies on the other side of the Pacific, is apt to grow a trifle nervous as he contemplates this situation. 1 Yet it may be that the horizon is not quite as dark as it seems. All this talk of war. ominous as it sounds, at least brings the problem out into the open and forces it on our attention. We at least are getting plenty of warmng that there is trouble ahead. We are not likely to repeat Europe's tragic mistake of 1914—when, as Newton D. Baker once remarked, the world went to war in a fit of absent-mindedness. Our task right now is to survey the sitution thoroughly, to know the worst, and to lay our plans accordingly. That such plans must include maintenance of an adequate fleet goes without saving. But that can not be the only item on the program. The difficulties between the two nations must be examined carefully, and peaceful ways of settling them must be sought. We are being warned in plenty of time. It ought not to be impossible for us to profit by the warning.

WHY NOT OPEN TENNIS? EVERY one knows that a good amateur sometimes can beat a good professional. The point was established long ago in stories about green young railroad conductors who put John L. Sullivan off the train, not to mention the golfing habits of Bobby Jones and the reversals that occur often in every sport except tennis % This factor of public interest, we believe, is an important one which the United States Lawn Tennis Association should consider in regard to its ban against open matches. Such contests would excite and delight the public. Would they cut Into the gate receipts of big amateur matches? The Lawn Tennis Association may fear that it would. The professionals perhaps have the most to gain as the game stands now. But the public has rights. There are differences between the two classes of tennis players, to be sure. Social differences, one leams from Mrs. Anna McCune Harper, who insisted that there should be safeguards “so that an amateur would not suffer loss of social prestige!” Financial differences also, as John Tunis points out in the words of an old professional friend of his: “If I'd known how much more money there was to be made as an amateur. John. I'd never have turned pro.” ‘ The differences, as me see them, are not hopeless. If the pro and amateur rulers of tennis could meet on friendly terms, even to approach the Idea of an open tournament, they could expect the hearty support of a large section of the public, and the effect would be to let in a realistic, common sense frankness, for which the game would be all the better.

THE RADICALS n ADICALS are fond of poking holes in liberal logic. They accuse the liberals of trying to buttress a system long past salvation. They hold that the liberals only are dressing up a corpse like the latest fashion plate and propping it up In a chair. They say that not even the most astute and prolonged liberal hocus-pocus can put the slightest breath of life into it. This all may be true. Certainly, the radicals ought to be encouraged to keep up their assaults upon us liberals in order that we may be compelled constantly to re-examine our facts and premises At the same time, it Is not unfair to call attention to the conspicuous reluctance of the radicals to admit that there can possibly be any mote in their own eyes while they proceed with such great gusto in snatching the beams from liberal eyes. This radical defect has been noted especially of late in the articles and reported speeches of the brilliant young English radical, John Strachey. Mr. Strachey has written what is by all odds the most persuasive defense of Communism and has duly warned us against the menace of Fascism. No informed or fairminded person can deny his high ability. Yet in an article attacking the desirability of a third or radical party in the United States, which is contributed to The American Mercury, he well illustrates the notable lack of logic in the radical contention that no sane person can stop anywhere between J. P. Morgan and Lenin. Mr. Strachey reviews the history of the British Labor party in order to discredit in advance the radical Farmer-Labor party which John Dewey and others hope to bring into being in the United States. He shows how the Labor party, especially after 1900, came under the control of men like Sidney Webb and Ramsay MacDonald, who believed in gradual reform rather than revolution. Mr. Strachey holds that the collapse of the British Labor party was due to the fact that it succumbed to Sidney Webb’s intriguing doctrine of “the inevitability of gradualness.” Not being united by any common devotion to revolution, the British laborites were paralyzed by sectarianism, and fought among themselves. All this, Mr. Strachey believes, should be a warning to American progressives: “Is it not possible for the American masses to leap over a whole historical phase, the phase of that nauseating thing, social-democratic reformism, and to pass direct from the domination of capitalist ideas to the clear-sighted revolutionary struggle for Communism?” It is in this this characteristic radical assumption that all is bound to fail under liberalism and that all must be well under radicalism which exhibits a singular lapse of logic and gross carelessness about the facts. Let us look a little realistically into this very history of the British Labor party. Mr. Strachey admits that it grew with astonishing rapidity down to 1929. Its nonrevolutionary character could not have been a serious handicap down to this time. Suppose that it had been revolutionary from the beginning. Would it have reached its contemporary proportions by the present time? Certainly not, if we can judge from this outcome of the general strike of 1926, though this was scarcely revolutionary enough to provoke the most determined tactics of the reactionaries. Nor can we assume that its espousal of gradualness was the main cause of the "collapse of the Labor government of 1931. General world conditions—especially the last great defensive spasm of capitalism in the effort to overcome depression—were adverse to, labor. Moreover, the old forces were too strong in Britain to be overthrown at the time. If British labor had been thoroughly revolutionary in 1931, there is every probability that the reaction would have been even more thorough and oppressive and the outlook for Britain labor even darker. Take Italy, for example. Here the revolutionary labor movement was strongly developed after the war. The answer was a Mussolini instead of a Stanley Baldwin. Even more a product of wishful thinking is the assumption that if labor abandoned itself wholeheartedly to revolution, it would come to see its own interests and cease all sectarianism—that the diversified groups who now follow company unions, the American Federation of Labor, the radical textile and mine unions, the I. W. W. and the like, would then all see eye to eye and chant the same hymn of hate. For the answer to this, we might have a look at the feud between Stalin and Trotsky and other examples of revolutionary sectarianism. Or, behold the bitter struggles between American revolutionary groups led by Foster, Lovestone, Weisbord and others. Foster hates Lovestone even more than he does William Green. There is something to be said for revolution and Communism. But it is certainly too much to imagine that they would at once inject into our masses logic and clarity of thought, bring unity out of confusion and assure certain and speedy victory. Least of all, would we expect such results in the United States where we do not have even a good healthy rash, to say nothing of revolutionary fervor.

EVASIVE HOLDING COMPANIES npHE federal power commission thinks it is time for the government to turn attention to utility holding companies. For one reason or another the federal water power act, usually considered one of the most thorough and intelligent pieces of legislation ever written, has never functioned effectively. Improper enforcement was the reason at first. Now the holding company problem places “insurmountable difficulties.” the commission reports, in the way of auditing costs of a licensed power project—and this is the foundation of the regulation the commission is supposed to exercise. Under the new deal we are getting anew vision of what planned development of the nation’s power resources may mean to the people, of what electric rates within the capacity of every pocketbook may bring in the way of civilized living. But the vision is not enough. Unless the power commission is unshackled and allowed to proceed toward this goal fulfillment will never come. Licensing and regulation of power projects is a joke while the power commission, when it sets out to determine costs, finds that "the pertinent facts . . . are either buried in accounts of companies outside the commission's jurisdiction and, therefore, not subject to its scrutiny, or are not to be found in any record at all." And regulation had better not remain a joke. If it doesn't begin to work pretty soon

It Is going to find itself crowded off the scene, giving place to public ownership. Much as the utility companies dislike having their expenditures scrutinized and checked, the alternative they face is even more disturbing from their point of view. For them the smart thing would have been provision in their NRA code for holding company regulation. They missed the opportunity and the next step must be legislation. The federal power commission’s request for authority over holding companies is a conservative request and one that should be granted at once before events move beyond the point where it can serve a useful purpose. HOPEFUL COMPUTATION ONE of the effects of the devaluation program apparently will be a reduction in the actual size of the United States governments stupendous debt. Shortly before devaluation was announced, Professor Irving Fisher of Yale pointed out that although the debt recently increased in round figures from $21,000,000,000 to $24,000,000,000, the total actually is substantially less, if a reduction in the value of the dollar is taken into account. Viewed in this light, he remarked, the government debt today is really about 12 per cent less than the debt of March 4, 1933 despite the fact that in cold figures it is 15 per cent greater. All this is comforting enough, to a nation filled with uneasiness by a growing federal debt. But it indicates that the ordinary processes of arithmetic aren’t going to be quite enough for us in our future assessments of national profit and loss. A method of reckoning which makes 24 billions less than 21 billions is something our school books failed to teach us.

Liberal Viewpoint ___By DR. HARRY ELMER BARNES

IN the light of our tough and bitter experience with American banks since the World war, we are likely to welcome anything which even appears to assure greater solvency and dependability. More than 11,000 banks closed from 1920 to the time of the great epidemic at the end of February, 1933. More than five billion dollars were lost to depositors either temporarily or permanently. If we were to include frozen assets and still closed banks the total loss would have to be placed much higher. It was inevitable that something drastic would have to be done to prevent the recurrence of such calamitous inefficiency and dishonesty as that which characterized our banking operations in the fifteen years before Mr. Roosevelt’s inauguration. The most direct response to this need for action was the Glass-Steagall bill, which was signed by the President on June 16, 1933. The portion of this act which is most immediately related to the future protection of the American people in the banking field is that which proposes to guarantee bank deposits. From Jan. 1, 1934, to July 1, 1934, the United States government and the participating banks proposed to guarantee all deposits up to $2,500. On July 1, 1934, the permanent plan will be installed. Then deposits will be guaranteed 100 per cent up to SIO,OOO, 75 per cent between SIO,OOO and $50,000 and 50 per cent above $50,000. tt tt ALL member banks of the federal reserve system must co-operate in this insurance plan, and nonmember banks may join if they meet the conditions imposed. To effect this guarantee, a sum of around $425,000,000 will be raised, contributed about equally by advances from the treasury of the United States and the federal reserve banks and a levy of one-half of 1 per cent of the deposit liabilities upon the other banks which participate. On the basis of reasonable probability, the losses each year are likely to run something over $300,000,00. This would seem all to the good to the casual observer, but the whole plan is bitterly attacked in an article in the American Mercury, by H. Parker Willis, one of our foremost authorities on banking and a severe critic of the banks in relation to their past follies. His criticism of the deposit guarantee plan is not based upon any affection for our bankers. In the first place, Professor Willis points out that we are only trying, at the best, to lock the stable door after the horse has walked out. In fact, in the case of commercial banks, the horse, symbolizing actual deposits, was never in the stable. If we want to act sensibly, the thing to do now is to put up an effective fence around the lot where the horse has strayed. In the second place, the whole guarantee scheme is manifestly unfair. In any sensible' readjustment of our banking scheme, the dishonest and inefficient banks should be penalized for their delinquencies while the honest and efficient banks should be rewarded. The present guarantee plan reverses this whole process. It seeks to compel the solvent banks to pay the debts of the insolvent. Bankers who have been conspicuous for integrity and shrewdness must now be punished by coming to the rescue of simpletons and crooks. i In the third place, the guarantee plan is more likely to destroy banking than it is to aid our banking system, thus, in the end, ruining the very depositors whom we aim to protect. The new guarantee plan will inevitably require the average sound bank to devote half or more of its annual dividends to the payment of th* losses resulting from the failure of other banks. It is a very optimistic person who believes that our private banking system will long endure under such conditions. Professor Willis is not opposed to a deposit guarantee, but he contends that it must be made in scientific and discriminating fashion. What must precede any sane and successful guarantee of bank deposits is a complete reorganization of our whole banking system.

WE have already divorced investment banking from commercial banking. We must go one step further and separate commercial banking wholly from the savings deposit business. Let the investment banks handle bonds, mortgages and other long-time capital obligations. No guarantee could be expected here. It is all an investor’s risk. In the second place, commercial banks should be prevented from having in their portfolios long-time paper. If commercial banks are limited to the handling of short-time paper, representing the ability of borrowers to meet debts promptly at maturity, there will be no need of guaranteeing deposits in these banks. Only in the case of banks that are based upon savings deposits is there any call for a guarantee of deposits, and this should never he established until such banks are compelled to refrain from commercial banking operations. When they are thus restricted, deposit guarantee would be both logical and safe. In this fashion, we could have a deposit guarantee where it is needed without wrecking the whole banking system through attempting to guarantee deposits where such action is impossible, unnecessary or unjust. United States senators, a scientist reveals, have brains that average two ounces heavier than those of representatives. That must be the weight of the additional responsibilities the senators hold. A Judge in Portage. Wis.. threw out all courtroom cuspidors. A wise and learned judge. He knew the hangers-on would follow soon after. It's called “The Code of Fair Competition for Bankers.” Well, why not? All’s fair in love, war and banking.

THE INDIANAPOLIS TIMES

(Times readers are invited to express their views in these columns. Make l/our letters short, so all can have a chance. Limit them to ISO words or less.) a si a HOW WONDERFUL ARE OUR BELIEFS? By Dnem. Lincoln Steffans is right. The year 1933 was the funniest in any one’s life. From the beginning of the world one of the aims of the people was to produce a surplus of the necessities which provide food, clothing and shelter. Through the products of a surplus it eliminated the danger of famine, offered additional time for the pursuit of recreation and to engage in the arts. We have accomplished that which has never been done before, a surplus of everything. Why should we cry hard times in such a land of plenty? The voters will not agree that we have a wrong system of distribution of this created wealth. Even though the majority of them are struggling for the bare necessities of life, they refuse to look to the advantages of a co-operative or communistic system for their own preservation. The best example of the advantages of a co-operative or communistic system can be seen by looking at the financial statements of the large trusts. When the people advocate a cooperative system for their cain, it is classed as communistic and unAmerican. when big business does it for the purpose of monopolizing and securing their profits, it is called a merger and is classed as one of the wonders of the twentieth century. How wonderful are the beliefs and prejudices of the people when it comes to using them for gain. Yes, the average citizen will fight for his rights—what are his rights? The right to a starvation diet or bread line. The conditions today have gone farther ahead than the minds of our politicians (sometimes confused with statesmen). When will the minds of the people go with a younger generation, which sees its right to earn a living denied? isn’t this a sudden change from idealism to materialism?

nun CASTS DOUBTS UPON WAR FOE’S MOTIVES By Earle C. Bailey. We now hear that several nations are deeply interested in doing away with part of the horrors of war. That is good, but there is a question as to their motives. Is it love? We think not. In the past, if Presidents, congresses, kings, parliaments, etc., were afraid their own hide might be punctured, they could order someone else to the front. Now the front is everywhere. These more important ones are in danger of bombs, gas, etc., anywhere they happen to be. If they can prevent cities from being bombed, gas from being used and the smashing, crashing tanks from forcing their way to them, war will be pleasant—to them. Yes, the buck private can eat the fire. His wounds will not smart as would the dainty hides of the rulers. We agree with them on that much disarmament, and wish they could see the need of more—with the right motive. a 9 m BRANDS ARIZONA TRIP WASTE OF MONEY By A Reader. Just wishing to express my opinion (and apparently that of the entire public) of our state administration, I have refrained from doing this just as long as patience would endure. The limit has arrived, and here is my idea of the situation: Most of the department is proving to be a bunch of “crooked politicians” and are not capable of being state authorities. Most every move they make increases the burden of the taxpayers. For instance, the trip to Arizona was nothing more than a vacation, and money was spent unnecessarily by taking Miss Marie Grott, who

Sr*

The Message Center

THAT’S NEWS!

Three Cheers for the Trustee

By John Drake. There seems to be quite a row in your Message Center about the way our poor relief is being handled, one man borrowed four baskets of coal while waiting for his order. Another lady says that he will be lucky to ever get it. I wonder if they realize what a tremendous job they have at the trustee’s office. Any person can get a good idea by stepping into the office on Senaie avenue. A year ago last November I applied for relief and was assigned a job for two days a week at the Southeastern avenue dumps. From there I went to Christian park, and from there to the State Board of Charities office. During that time I missed my basket three times and my coal once. I cried and raved as much or more as any of them. I even told my friends that I was going to write to your paper and tell you what a rotten outfit the trustee’s office was. I’m glad that I didn’t. About June, 1932, I was transferred to the office of the emergency work committee and was assigned a job at the desk with Mr. Dietzenberger. My job was to assist him to assign new men to work and also to listen to and ex-

is only the secretary of the bureau of criminal identification. Now just why was it necessary to take her along? Asa matter of fact, why should money be spent to return prisoners to Indiana and proceed with an expensive trial when they are wanted in other states for as much, or more, than Indiana has against them? I can not say much for Governor McNutt, in permitting such burdens to be placed on the innocent public. Though one should not expect any more from that office since, from the previous actions of Pleas Greenlee, McNutt is not really the Governor, but is being paid to hold the office. Such things as these are an outrage to the public, and an end of such should be made by the legislature. . it C B SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET TRAFFIC UNDER FIRE By Jimmy Cafouros. One time South Meridian street was a clogged, unkempt, poorly surfaced street. Today it is a modern thoroughfare, paved in the most modern fashion, and accommodating

A Woman’s Viewpoint - Ttv MRS. WALTER FFTtr.TTSOIM

YOUNG women are tremendously concerned about economic independence. I have letter after letter describing the ambitions of the writers and inquiring as to the probability of their realization. Fortunately, the fields into which girls may go these days are many, but so few of us understood what success and independence really are. Primarily, of course, success means the making of money, or at least of a decent living. Girls hardly expect more than that. But we should want something else. To build a good life, nad to work, not for cash alone, but for the pleasure we have in doing our Job—these are the true rewards for all human striving. And so, it seems to me, before we can become economically independent fe must first be spiritually free. The latter often involves far more effort than the former. I’ve known plenty of fine girls who were regular whizzes at the office—almost top notch in their professions or trade—but who were such slaves to other people that

[I wholly disapprove of what you say and will 1 defend to the death your right to say it — Voltaire. J

cuse from work men who had a reason for not working. Then I began to see what the trustee’s office was up against. With about 6.0C0 men at work, besides those w r ho were excused from work by the trustees, which, I imagine, was 1,000 or more, a person can plainly see that there was bound to be a mistake now and then. To see that everybody got coal, milk and groceries on the specified day was a large order. We found that most of the knockers were goldbrickers, and that they were at fault themselves because they failed to receive proper relief. Os course, not all were that way, and it caused hardships to them at the time. I believe that every person who is entitled to relief will get it. As to Mrs. Spaulding, if some of these knockers had her job, they would call doing without coal and groceries a godsend, when it comes to hearing about it as much as she does and trying to satisfy some people who wouldn’t be satisfied with all the money that Henry Ford has. I am the father of five children, and I am as poor as any of the rest, but I say three cheers for the trustees, as I think they are doing a wonderful job.

a prodigous amount of traffic. It is evident that the conditions that held sway in the Meridian street of old hardly can be said to operate today. There being more traffic there naturally would be more mishaps—more accidents. But the point is that the accidents are not proportionate to the traffic. They far supersede that. Woe to the dog or the cat that so much as dares to cross the street. A thousand toots and blares and whistles and horns to the wary individual who ventures a crossing. Tilings have come to a pass that only the more alert, the swifter, and the more strategic can cross without compunction. I have seen aged men and women, not to speak of cripples, who have scoured entire neighborhoods in search of an opportunity to cross much like horsemen used to seek fords in the rivers. One thing is certain. This accident trend is a growing one. So conditions will grow worse and school children will be next in the list of injured, unless scientific and organized action is taken.

they could not spend so much as a happy half hour with themselves. That’s what I call being spiritually dependent. a rt IF every monent of your day, you must have companionship of some sort then you are not independent at all. You are condemned to a perpetual serfdom—the serfdom of the mob. If you can not sit down and enjoy your own society, or read a book, or feel keen pleasure In that sense of enlargement of personality that comes only by being alone, then you might just as well be back in the Victorian era so far as getting any god out of freedom is concerned. We are a gregarious people, but there is something almost servile in our consuming need for excitement and noise. One seldom meets a serene woman nowadays. We all scream and fidget and laugh when there’s nothing to daugh at. And so I think the one thing the modern girl needs for any kind of success is more time out for getting acquainted with herself.

FEB, 6, 1934

HE WANTS JUSTICE ON INCOME TAXES By M. N. E. What I am looking for is a man who can talk long enough and fast enough to make me see the light of justice in this gross income tax. I am a man with a wife and four kids that depend on me for sustenance, so, when I fell out of work in May, I didn't cry for help because there were no jobs. I went out and created one. I started in the milk business. The first ten weeks I made about $8 a week, just enough to eat on. Then things got better, and I finally got up to around $25 a week, if no one beats me out of a dollar—which, by the way, is not a rare event these days—and when this happens it doesn’t come off the gross income tax or the milk company, but off of the kids’ backs and out of their stomachs. Now I have a friend who works for a oakery and who makes more money that I do, yet on his salary he paid $2.40 tax while I must pay over fourteen times as much on really less money. It looks like big men getting fatter and small men, who are fighting for an honest living, being frozen out. How many cuts on the same dollar will it take to get all that dollar? I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. u tt n THOUGHT—REAL THOUGHT—BEHIND THIS By Herbert F. Mitchell. In line with your current “Stallings”series, may I suggest the following thought as regards veteran organization parades? Are we right in the display of pomp and circumstance surrounding the “turnouts” of our vrell respected war veterans? The smart uniforms —the golden helmets —the enthralling music—will these things not tend to lead our younger generation to the belief in the “Glory of War?” Would it not be more appropriate if our veterans w’ere to march with their original tattered uniforms, mud stained faces, broken spirits, shell-shocked attitudes, sorrow stricken souls, and thus impress on our sons just a slight imprint of the real “horrors of wars” I speak truly when 1 say that those who went and saw the unspeakable, never -to- be- forgotten horrors of the battlefield, do not wish these things to be glorified to their sons. My remarks are not meant as criticism to the veteran organizations. Their efforts for recognition are both necessary and commendable. My thought is solely that we who have "seen” should endeavor {o remove the thought of “Militarism and Glory’ from the minds of our parade loving boys.

To E. A. P. (January, 1809) BY ARCHER SHIRLEY The years have only added to your fame, , O bard of beauty, love and hopes. Neglected while you live, the world has sung Your worth in e’er increasing waves of praise Until the blind souls of today lie prone Before your feet ,and hope to see one ray From your bright robe of pure celestial light. The beauty of our Israfel; the chimes Os bells on winter’s nights; the hope of him Whose love has died, her he would see “Ne’ermore” All sing within our hearts. More praise to thee, For in your eyes and from your soul We see the glory our poor eyes have missed, And gain a world from out your burning mind.