SENATE PERILS IN THE TAX-BILL'S PATH

A

$325,000,000 CHRISTMAS GIFT to Federal taxpayers and one which, a press writer notes, will be "useful throughout the year," was presented by the House of Representatives in the speedily enacted income-tax revision measure. Now the gentlemen of the House were fully aware of the Christmas flavor of their action, so much so that there developed a neat little argument over whose stockings were being filled. When the Republican floor leader congratulated his fellow members on their "being able to play the rôle of Santa Claus," a Democratic member, Mr. Rainey of Illinois, shouted angrily: "Christmas present! Forty-two millionaires get Christmas presents of $200,000,000.” And right here the correspondents and editors find a hint that when the Senate gets through with this tax-bill some time in February or March, the taxpayer won't be able to recognize his Christmas present. For the practically non-partizan backing of the bill which was responsible for its passage through the House after only twelve working days is considered non-existent in the Senate. There, correspondents tell us, almost anything may happen.

The bill is practically the measure reported by the Ways and Means Committee. It eliminates publicity; reduces the maximum surtax from 40 to 20 per cent.; jumps the normal married exemption from $2,500 to $3,500; reduces the maximum inheritance tax from 40 to 20 per cent.; removes certain nuisance taxes; and makes a total tax-reduction of $325,000,000. The Providence Journal hopes and believes "that the upper branch of Congress will take care to enact the bill at a reasonable date. There will be much talk against it by Progressive and Democratic irreconcilables, but they are not expected to stand in the way of its final passage in approximately its present form." The Brooklyn Eagle and the New York Herald Tribune hint that in a clash over the tax-bill public opinion will side with the House and against the Senate.

Nevertheless, insists the Pittsburgh Sun, "no one should be deceived by its easy passage through the House into expectation of equally smooth sailing in the Senate." It adds: "there is no popular demand for obstruction to the tax-bill, so it is passed by the House of Representatives and so it will be opposed in the House of Perverseness.' And here we find a number of Washington correspondents of the same opinion. It seems to Mr. Leroy T. Vernon of the Chicago Daily News that the public, "in view of the non-partizan agreement in the House, has been lulled into a sense of false security by the apparent calm on the surface, for Democratic Leader Simmons is determined to bring before the Senate a Democratic substitute tax measure with a higher maximum surtax than is provided in the House bill. And Mr. Vernon suggests that if the Senate Democrats really get behind the proposed Simmons substitute "there are enough Progressive Republicans left in the Senate to join them for a real tussle to keep up surtax rates at least higher than they are now in the House measure." Arthur Sears Henning of the Chicago Tribune recalls that the vote on the maximum surtax was much closer than the vote by which the finished bill was passed; "if, when the bill goes to the Senate, the Democrats of that body follow the example of their house brethren in proportionate numbers, they may be able, in conjunction with the La Follette group, to force adoption of a higher surtax schedule, tho it probably would not go above a maximum of 25 per cent." In a New York World dispatch from Washington we read that the Democrats "are up in arms in the Senate and are confident of rewriting the measure almost from one end to the other." They "will charge that the House bill favors only the multi-millionaires, notably the Secretary of the Treasury." We read further:

"Just how far the Democrats will get with their rival bill can not be safely predicted yet, but a careful nose count by Simmons has convinced him that he will have forty-eight votes, or just half the Senate, assured. This includes most of the

Democrats, save Glass, Underwood and Bruce, and counts in all the Republican independents like Borah, Norris, Johnson, Frazier, Brookhart, Couzens of Michigan, and La Follette."

Many Democratic leaders and newspapers, according to Mr. W. W. Jermane of the Seattle Times, feel that the House Democrats made a mistake in joining with the Republicans and not having a bill of their own to give the party a definite standing before the country. This "would have let the country know the Democratic party was functioning as usual." It seems to this veteran correspondent that the Senate Democrats would be playing good politics by making a fight for a Democratic taxreduction measure:

"Even if Senate Democrats should conclude to have a tax-bill of their own, they will do nothing to jeopardize substantial reductions of existing rates. They might, however, be able to use their own bill as a rallying center and a leverage for the amendments they have in mind. The regular Republicans must depend upon them for enough votes to put a bill through. Senator Curtis, Republican leader, can count on not more than about forty-two votes for any administration measure. He will get the Democratic votes, after the partizan play has been made, for there are almost as many conservatives on that side of the Senate as on the Republican side.

"Meanwhile, the Democratic gesture in favor of higher surtaxes-affecting the rich, of whom there are only a few-and higher exemptions-affecting people of moderate means, of whom there are millions-will be featured in next year's campaign."

The feeling that the tax-reduction bill will probably become a law much as it passed the House is shared by the Washington Star, which does not even believe that there will be a "disposition unduly to prolong debate in the Senate." This paper hears that the Democratic Senators will try to increase the total taxreduction and extend the period over which our war debt is to be liquidated, but it does not believe they will secure any help from Progressive Republicans in this particular attempt. A strong fight, we are told, will be made on the low estate-tax rates of the House bill, and also on the repeal of publicity. The Star quotes Senator Smoot, Chairman of the Finance Committee, to the effect that his committee would begin consideration of the tax-bill on January 4, "that the bill would be reported to the Senate by January 20, and that it would pass finally in time to permit the filing of income-tax returns under the new rates."

While most papers seem to hope that the House bill will go through practically intact, the Providence News thinks it may be "changed in ways that will make it a more Democratic measure"; similarly the New York World sees room for improvement:

"Primarily, it lops off too much of the income tax in both the lowest and the highest brackets. The increase in the amount of personal exemption will strike over 2,000,000 names from the Federal tax-rolls. Narrowing the base for the income tax in this way increases the uncertainty of the yield, inasmuch as incomes in the higher brackets are subject to greater fluctuation from year to year than those in the lower. Furthermore, the direct payment of even a small tax is an effective method of maintaining the citizen's interest in his Government.

"The heavy reduction in taxes on incomes in the higher brackets would be justifiable if the Government at the same time could eliminate the remaining war-time taxes on consumption. Abolition of the latter should take precedence over drastic reductions in income taxes. This consideration applies with equal force to the estate tax."

A vigorous denunciation of the House tax-bill on the ground that it "tends to destroy the very principle of the income tax" is made by the Washington News:

"It is paving the way for indirect taxes that can be loaded almost entirely upon wage-earners and others of small income. "This year the little fellows are being baited with real reductions in their income tax. Some two million of them are being wiped off the income-tax rolls entirely. But all the reductions given the little fellows make a smaller total than the reductions given the few thousand citizens whose incomes run into the millions annually. The latter class gets the real benefit."

THE WAR DEBT ROW IN THE SENATE

HE "OLD BATTALION OF DEATH" that did such valiant service in the fight against the League

T

of Nations, observes the Brooklyn Eagle, critically,

is arming for another battle. The first broadside was fired in the Senate during the week before Christmas by Senator James A. Reed, Democrat of Missouri, and other Western and Southern Democrats and Western Republicans, when Senator Smoot, Republican of Utah, endeavored to obtain ratification of the debt settlements negotiated within the last few months with Italy, Belgium, Czecho-Slovakia, Roumania, Esthonia, and Latvia. Senator Harrison, Democrat of Mississippi, maintained that the agreement with the Italian Government, whereby it begins paying interest on its war debt at the rate of one-eighth of one per cent., would cost the American taxpayer at least $3,000,000,000, and Senator Reed, says a Washington dispatch to the Springfield Union, declared that every debtor nation should be made to pay the principal of its debt in full and interest at 44 per cent. If a nation could not pay the United States out of its income, it should be made to pay out of its capital, he said. He also introduced a resolution calling for an investigation to ascertain whether any foreign Government has been spending money on propaganda to influence our foreign policies.

From the foregoing, it is clear to Albert W. Fox, of the Washington Post, that "the opposition to ratification of the war-debt settlements is going to be so pronounced in the Senate that it may be months before favorable action can be obtained." In the opinion of Senator Norris, Republican of Nebraska, Italy, who negotiated a new loan of $100,000,000 soon after funding her war debt with this country, instead of paying one-eighth of one per cent. to Uncle Sam and 7 per cent. to the holders of Italian Government bonds, "should pay her war debts and the bankers on an even footing." Senator Johnson, Republican of California, Senator Howell, Republican of Nebraska, Senator Robinson, Democrat of Arkansas, and Senator McKellar, Democrat of Tennessee, according to Washington dispatches, were particularly bitter in their denunciation of recent war-debt agree ments. Said Senator Reed, of Missouri:

"When we were in the war the European countries came here and asked for aid. We passed three bills authorizing the borrowing of money. We provided that loans could be made to various foreign countries for the purpose of enabling them to carry on the war, . . . the idea being that while we would borrow this money from the American people, the American people would never be taxed a single dollar for either interest or principal, because the foreign country borrowing the money would be obligated to pay us the same amount of interest that we were paying for the money we had borrowed to loan them.

"That agreement the then Secretary of the Treasury violated. Instead of receiving bonds, he took from foreign borrowers an obligation in writing conditioned that they would give the bonds thereafter, and that in the meantime they would pay 5 per cent. interest. So we borrowed this money from our people . upon an implied contract that they never would be taxed to pay either the interest or the principal or any part of it.

"That is the starting point. The war was fought out. Then came propaganda by international bankers that America should cancel the indebtedness of foreign countries. It came from the house of Morgan. It came from all of these gentlemen who had themselves been making loans.

"Until the $10,000,000,000 we borrowed and loaned to Europe has been wiped out, we must pay the interest at 44 per cent. up to date whether it ever can be reduced or not is a question for the future and we must finally pay the principal. Italy owes us a certain amount of money. Part of it is interest and part of it is principal. She has no more right to repudiate the interest than she has to repudiate the principal."

Certainly, agrees the New York Evening World, "the settlements thus far made have been liberal. They have meant the forgiving of a very large part of the debts, and the taxing of American citizens to pay the portion that is forgiven."

The great majority of newspapers, however, aline themselves

with Senator Smoot, Republican of Utah and member of the Debt Funding Commission, who says "it is very doubtful whether Italy can pay what she has agreed to pay." "The terms granted Italy and Belgium are liberal," admits the Atlanta Journal, "but they probably are no more liberal than they should be on the basis of reasonable capacity to pay."

This, substantially, is the view-point of the New York Times, New Haven Register, Philadelphia Record, New York Herald Tribune, Hartford Times, Boston Post, Council Bluffs Nonpareil, Springfield Republican, St. Louis Globe-Democrat, and St. Louis

Post-Dispatch, the last two of which are the largest journals, with the exception of the Kansas City Star, in Senator James A. Reed's home State. Says The Post-Dispatch:

"Senator Reed strest the point that loans have been made to the debtor countries by bankers, at high rates of interest, while we accepted very little interest. But the loans were necessary for immediate cash resources, in order to establish financial conditions which would enable the debtor countries to keep going and pay anything."

Furthermore, explains The Globe-Democrat:

"The Italian Government has agreed to pay the full amount of the principal of its debt, $2,042,000,000, and interest over the period of sixty-two years, amounting in the whole to $421,701,250. It is true that if Italy were required to pay interest at the rate of 4.14 per cent., which we pay on our Liberty bonds, the interest would amount to more than the principal. If we paid 4.14 per cent. on the full amount of Liberty bonds that cover the amounts loaned to foreign countries through the period of sixty-two years, the loans would cost us more than we receive. But these bonds will be wiped out and interest stopt in less than half that length of time.

"But in all these settlements the question has not been how much was due us, but how much the debtors could reasonably be expected to pay. It is to our interest and profit to aid these countries in getting on their feet. They are our customers; we want and need their trade. Entirely aside from sentimental considerations, the settlements are just and wise from the practical standpoint."

sit down to the table to consider means of reducing armament, lifting onerous burdens of taxation from the people, and reducing to a minimum the temptation to invoke force in the settlement of disputes. The United States can not afford to diminish by one iota the possibilities of a successful issue, nor need our participation involve us at all in the League."

The Special Preparatory Commission for Disarmament, as the League body is called, is purely one of inquiry to discover what armament questions can be taken up, with reasonable hope that limitation agreements can be negotiated. We read in a Washington dispatch to the New York Times that

"The Washington Government has no intention of becoming a party to any agreement with other Powers for the reduction of European land armaments. As the probable outcome of the proposed League disarmament conference is seen in Washington, land armaments will be dealt with in a series of regional security agreements, somewhat along the line of the Locarno treaties. With such arrangements this Government does not conceive that it has anything to do. In agreements affecting naval limitation, however, the United States has an intimate concern and will join wholeheartedly in a conference of that character, provided the preliminary meeting called by the League formulates agenda that, in the opinion of the President and the Secretary of State, will give promise of practical results. Its participation, however, will be confined to advice and suggestion, and it is probable that the American delegation, under instructions from the Secretary of State, will make it clear that this Government will not, by that participation, commit itself to responsibility for any of the land security compacts expected to emanate from the disarmament conference proper."

Mr. Coolidge, we are reminded, is in deep sympathy with any move for additional arms reduction. And Mr. Kellogg, in his recent New York speech, declared the Government would do everything possible to bring about the rehabilitation of Europe, so long as we could keep clear of political entanglements and military alliances. Senator Borah, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, altho classified as a "bitter ender" against the League, likewise is a consistent advocate of arms reduction. Germany, several editors point out, is already a prospective member of the League, and her refusal to attend the conference is unlikely. As for Russia, the third great nation outside the League to receive an invitation, Foreign Minister Tchitcherin is authority for the statement, made to the London Observer, that Russia is willing to disarm and abolish war industries if a common scheme of disarmament can be arranged with other Powers. As the New York Evening World remarks: "Here we have almost all the nations of the earth ready tc

-Gale in the Los Angeles Times.

"Besides the ten nations represented on the Council of the League Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Spain, Belgium, Brazil, Sweden, CzechoSlovakia and Uruguay-eight other Governments besides the United States are invited to send representatives. These are Bulgaria, Finland, Germany,TheNetherlands, Poland, Roumania, Jugo-Slavia and Soviet Russia.

To the New York Herald Tribune, the invitation "discloses a program of remarkable scope." For, we are informed:

"The League is going to approach the problem simultaneously from all possible angles -war strength, peace strength, air, sea and land strength, merchant marine strength, offensive and defensive armament, industrial, financial, and population resources, geographical situation, communications, relative security and insecurity. It is a vast undertaking, whose political, economic and technical complexity requires, in the Council's opinion, the cooperation of all the nations. "Congress has heretofore taken the lead in suggesting international disarmament action. It has many times requested the President to encourage or summon conferences for that purpose. If Congress desires the Geneva invitation to be accepted and says so, there could be little hesitation here about cooperating with the League in its disarmament plans. Certainly no outside invited nation would be bound in advance to accept blindly the work of the preparatory commission or of the conference. The project would stand at all times on its own merits, and in so far as it seemed practicable and also world-wide in its application, rather than merely European, the United States would have much to gain and nothing to lose by engaging in another effort to put the world on a more effective peace basis."

Should Congress vote to grant the President's request for funds to pay the expenses of a commission, points out David Lawrence, in a Consolidated Press dispatch from Washington, "it will be tantamount to approval of the mission, and with the support of Congress the commission's opinions will have more weight at Geneva." Furthermore, says this writer:

"Mr. Coolidge and his Cabinet, aside from their desire to promote world peace, favor American acceptance of the League's invitation for the practical reason that the United States wants Europe to reduce her armament and spend her money for reconstruction so as to buy more American products and raw materials. The conference will spend most of its time on land armament and the problem of industrial control of raw materials used in economic warfare. These questions are vitally related to American industry."

But many obstacles remain to be overcome before European nations can afford to disarm, maintains Frank H. Simonds in one of his syndicated articles. France and Great Britain, he

figures, can not reduce their colonial armies because of the dangers which threaten both, the French chiefly in Africa; the British mainly in Asia. Furthermore, "it is clear that Roumania and Poland, bordering Russia and always menaced by Russian hostility, will not consent to the reduction of their armies below the point deemed essential to their own defense." David Lloyd George, Great Britain's former Prime Minister, also declares in a Washington Star article that

"Russia is a hostile and antagonistic nation, at war with the rest of civilization. She is a danger and a menace, not only to her neighbors but in all quarters of the globe."

The impression of the Springfield Union is that

"The Soviet Government does not want to reduce armaments. For its relations with other nations Russia has two instruments, propaganda and armies, and, while it is constantly using propaganda to disturb other Governments, it may anticipate the possible usefulness of armies in the future."

Aside from the Russian menace, observes the New York Evening Post, "the call comes to the United States at an embarrassing hour, when debt settlements agitate Washington and the old League war is breaking out against the World Court." Other newspapers may be opposed to our participation in the conference, but they have not come to our attention-with one exception, the Grand Rapids Herald. Says this Michigan paper:

TO SAVE THE GREAT AMERICAN HOME ANY GOOD POSITIONS at $18 and $20 a week,

"M

WORLD PEACE

with board and room, go begging while girls take factory and restaurant jobs at $12 a week, or remain idle without even considering housework." Thus the problem is stated by an employment agent in one of our Western States. And Representative Sol Bloom, of New York, calls for a change in our immigration laws as a solution. "Mr. Bloom has doubtless watched the efforts of Mrs. Bloom to procure personages to preside over his kitchen, and become appalled at her frequent failures," remarks the Baltimore Evening Sun. At any rate, "Mr. Bloom's suggested change ought to have the serious consideration" of the members of Congress, declares the Washington Post. The Bloom measure provides that European women who have engaged in domestic service for at least one year preceding their admission to the United States, and who would come here to work as home servants for at least three years after their arrival, may be admitted as non-quota

"We have nothing to contribute to a 'land armament conference' which is held under European auspices, on European soil, to deal with a specific European complex. Nor are we needed in this conference-if it has the will to peace. We could not help-if it lacks the will to peace. Therefore, it is a serious consideration whether we should participate at all, except as a friendly and sympathetic bystander."

The Philadelphia Record, on the other hand, sees in the League's invitation "a great opportunity for the President." If we care to have the world disarm, we have got to do something about it ourselves, this paper believes. The neighboring Inquirer also is of the opinion that "Congress should give Mr. Coolidge a free hand," and the Rochester Herald thinks "we should lose no time in accepting the invitation in the spirit in which it was tendered." This is also the view of the Mobile Register, New Orleans Times-Picayune, and Newark News. As the case for participation is put by the Pittsburgh Sun:

"The problem of armaments concerns us deeply. It can not be dealt with save by conference. No conference can be held without preparation. And since we are concerned, it is not only fitting but advisable that we should have some part in fixing the agenda."

Finally, concludes the Chicago Evening Post:

"There can be no danger of becoming politically entangled. Membership on the commission would not commit us to participation in the conference for which it will pave the way. The end which is sought is one with which the United States is in accord. The issue is bigger than the rehabilitation of Europe. It concerns the security and peace of the world."

immigrants. The New York Herald Tribune quotes the New York City member of Congress as saying:

"Statistics of domestic relations, showing the breaking up of homes, and the hegira to hotel life, are alarming. The tendency is to desert private housekeeping for public housekeeping enterprises, when opportunity offers, as is shown by the statistical figures of

women engaged in increasing numbers as barbers, hair-dressers, manicurists, cleaners and renovators, stewardesses, janitors, lunch-room keepers and waitresses, all of which occupations are carried on outside of private homes.

"Obviously some escape from this deplorable condition must be devised promptly if the American home, the cradle of discipline and religion, is to serve and fulfil its mission for weal. All labor agencies report a decided scarcity in supply of trained domestics, despite the fact that at no time have wages and conditions been so good. The average wage of domestics is from $15 to $20 a week, and board and lodging, and if my amendment should be adopted the American home would be preserved without inflicting any hardship upon the labor market of the United States."

The first newspaper reaction to the Bloom idea is not particularly encouraging to its originator. Will the threat of deportation keep these servant-girl immigrants in the home, asks the Philadelphia Inquirer "do threats intimidate any woman? Ask the militant suffragists." The Pittsburgh Gazette Times thinks that such a bid as Mr. Bloom advocates might bring some foreign girls here, but they might use it only as a means of entrance because other avenues are closed, and would abandon housework as soon as they felt they dared." The trouble is too deeply seated to be reached by any such palliative, argues the Baltimore American, which holds that the home can not compete with the inducements offered by industry and commerce:

"Mistresses of large establishments will be more and more obliged to adopt better methods, labor-saving devices and numerous short-cuts in housekeeping. Scientific management must be adapted to domestic needs. The future household servant will be the neighborhood electrician and mechanic, summoned for emergencies when fixtures get out of order."

YOUNG Bob La Follette is proving that he is a chip of the old bloc.-Life.

FRENCH is the universal language, but it isn't the one money talks.-Sacramento Bee.

Ir doesn't take much of a car, at that, to last some drivers a lifetime.-Arkansas Gazette.

SCALES are too often on the eyes of Justice instead of in her hands.-Wall Street Journal.

A SHINGLE, a cigaret and knickers make a lot of difference, but they don't fool a mouse.

-New Haven Register.

SOME women grow old before their time trying to look young after their time.-Boston Transcript.

PEACE is that blessed period when it isn't your sacred duty to believe an official lie.-Hartford Times.

HENRY FORD seems to be dividing his time among flivvers, flyers and fiddlers.-Indianapolis Star.

LIFE started from a cell, and if justice is done a lot of it is going to end there.Arkansas Gazette.

THE Navy rule nowadays seems to be three years afloat and three years on the witness stand.-Detroit News.

THE reason ideas die quickly in some heads is because they can't stand solitary confinement.-Columbia Record.

THE declining franc looks at the stabilized mark and wonders who won the war, anyway.-Philadelphia Record.

MA FERGUSON won't have school text-books in Texas saying that men are animals,

ECONOM

SAUCE

I'M NOT

VERY HUNGRY

THE question is not where civilization began, but when will it.-Baltimore Sun.

THE modern home to-day is supplied with everything except the family.-Buffalo Post.

THE only thing that can keep on growing without nourishment is an ego.-Fresno Republican.

WE gather from the trial that the only thing the flying force has plenty of is air.-Dallas News.

HENRY FORD is boosting

CAL IS SURELY GREAT ON THOSE NEW ENGLAND DISHES

and yet she insists that her political enemies are swine.-New York Evening World.

IN the college story of the future we may read: "The famous halfback then took thirty minutes' brisk practise on the addingmachine."-The New Yorker.

NET incomes of railroads in 1925 are greater than in any other year in their history. That is how truck and bus competition is killing the railroads.—Louisville Times.

THE Republican committee has officially recognized young La Follette as a Republican. Now perhaps the folks back home won't recognize him.-Birmingham Age-Herald.

A WOMAN Won the Sangamon County, Illinois, hog-calling contest this year, and, knowing men as well as we do, we should think any married woman would.-American Lumberman.

SCIENTISTS Say that in a few million years there will be no coal. The time seems rather long to wait for the settlement of a controversy involving so many interests.-Washington Star.

YOUNG Vincent Astor denies there is any social gulf between different groups of Americans. The main difference now is in the make of the car and the length of the vacation.-Memphis Commercial Appeal.

THEY are already talking of the proposed United States of Europe as a possible menace to the United States of America. But if they mind their own business as conscientiously as we do, there will be no trouble.-Philadelphia Inquirer.

barn dances when he is largely responsible for the garage era. -Indianapolis Star.

It seems impossible that potatoes once were the only food of the poor.-Chico (Cal.) Republican.

OUR idea is that now is a noble time for a bachelor to announce for Governor of Texas. -Arkansas Gazette.

Ан, well; Mussolini is just the right kind of boss for a country that needs that kind. -New Britain Herald.

Moscow says next tax law will relieve peasants. Presumably of what they have left. -Wall Street Journal.

THE man who tried his hand at something and failed might try using his head for a change.-Buffalo Post.

THE really hard thing is to be able to say whether it is opportunity at the door or another demonstrator.-Detroit News.

If there's anything in evolution, Americanism should in time develop a very strong trigger finger.-Baltimore Sun.

THE Prince of Wales, says a London dispatch, has a dread of becoming fat. He knows, probably, that the heavier they are the harder they fall off.Detroit Free Press.

THAT effort being made to get Russia into the League of Nations may be just a clever ruse to break up the League.— Southern Lumberman.

SOME people tell us that wild life is disappearing in the country. Our own observations lead us to believe that it is just moving to the city.-Buffalo Post.

LADIES who went in bathing used to dress like Mother Hubbard. Now they dress more like Mother Hubbard's cupboard.-Tampa Tribune.

THE ism folks who imagine the U. S. A. could easily settle the peace of Europe should take enough time from foreign affairs to fix up the coal strike.-Shoe and Leather Reporter.

IN the old days the slaughter-houses used to boast that every part of a pig was utilized except his squeal. Nowadays, the jazz bands are using even that.-New York American.

THE first definition given in the dictionary is supposed to be the accepted or usual meaning of the word, but Webster puts "border; margin" way down in fourth place as a definition of "skirt."-Arkansas Gazette.

CONSTANTINOPLE telephone girls have gone on a telephone strike for higher wages. It must be pretty hard work to be a telephone girl in Turkey, where they probably have two harems on a party line.-Cleveland Plain Dealer.