1898 Ad for an Evercirculator from Liberal, Missouri

I found the below posted from Liberal, Missouri in 1898.

Volume XII. January 1898, No. 1
Cincinnati, Ohio

WANTED – Five or six correspondents in Benn Pitman phonography to form an evercirculator. JAMES H ROBERTS, Box 91, Liberal, Missouri

So, what was an “evercirculator”? I go to an article in the Sep 1949 “The Rotarian” and find that an evercirculator was built on the theme of the round-robin letter.

…the idea calls for the continuous circulation of a notebook of writings, with an editor and, say, six contributors living in widely separated regions.

The editor obtains a loose-leaf notebook of convenient size, allows ten pages for each contributor, writes the first article, and mails the book to the second person on the list. Each contributor should have the book for a limited time–say, a week. He should read the contributions of the others, add his, and send the book to the next contributor. When the book makes its second or succeeding rounds, each contributor removes his first article and adds a new one.

What was Benn Pitman phonography?


A John Roberts was included as an early (pre Walser) settler in the O. E. Harmon book The Story of Liberal. Perhaps James H. Roberts, who posted the requests for correspondents on Benn Pitman phonography, was a relative. Perhaps not.

I wonder if James got his evercirculator off the ground?

M. D. Leahy, the head of Freethought University in Liberal, Converts to Anarchy, 1888

The below is from the publication Liberty, March 31, 1888. Advocating individualist anarchism, “Liberty” was published by Benjamin Ricketson Tucker from August 1881 to April 1908.

* * * * *

Not the Daughter But the Mother of Order

Boston, Mass., Saturday, March 31, 1888
Whole No. 121

Of recent conversions to Anarchy the most surprising to me is that of M. D. Leahy, who is at the head of the Freethought University in Liberal, Missouri. Until lately I had supposed him to be simply an Infidel of the ordinary type “playing second fiddle” to that founder of Liberal and hater of Liberty, G. H. Walser. And when he associated himself with C. M. Overton for the publication of the “American Idea,” he did not rise much higher in my opinion, for the character of that paper as it first appeared, with its Anarchistic opposition to prohibition, its Authoritarian opposition to free love, and its moral horror of Egoism, gave no evidence of power to intelligently follow a principle. But dissensions came, Overton went out, and now the paper appears under the management of M. D. Leahy and W. S. Allison. It is much reduced in size and is far from a model of elegant typography, but it has gained those immense virtues, — intelligence, manliness, and consistency. It is now a stanch and straight advocate of Anarchism, as is shown by the article elsewhere reproduced from its columns. To take such a step in the bigoted town of Liberal requires no small degree of courage, and I should much like to see Mr. Leahy encouraged in his course by generous subscriptions to his paper, which is issued weekly at one dollar a year. Address “American Idea, Liberal, Missouri.”

State Board of Agriculture Lecture in Liberal, Missouri, 1904

Monthly Bulletin
Vol. IV June, 1904 No. 3

The Institute.—Let me say a word here in favor of the commendable work now being done by our State Board of Agriculture. The farmers’ institute and the display car of products are working closer into the confidence of the older farmers than ever before. They have made a deep impression on many of the younger farmers, who are already beginning to take hold. They carry out their educational work in a manner that is readily grasped by the students of the public school, and never fail to say a good word for the work being accomplished by the Agricultural College.

Recently one of those institute meetings was held for us at Liberal, Missouri. The Liberal schools were dismissed in the afternoon for the occasion, and the interest shown by the students was intense. The young ladies were equally interested in the lectures, especially pleased with the contents of the display car, and many students expressed a desire to, at some time, succeed in attending the Agricultural College, and devoting themselves in that direction.

This is what is wanted. A stimulus to the ambition of the youth of the land in an agricultural direction, for let it be understood that a person never achieves anything which they have no ambition for. If a man has not an ambition to drive the best team in the county he will never drive it. If he has no ambition to raise ihe biggest crop of corn in the State he will never raise it. If he has not an ambition to accomplish something he will never accomplish it. Ambition must precede the accomplishment. Cause must precede the effect. No cause, no effect.

The recent lecture of the President of the Missouri Corn Growers’ Association at Liberal is already bearing fruit and more work in that line is now craved by the farmers.

This portion was from a report by P. E. Crabtree of Hannon, Missouri (in Barton County), “Indian Corn–From a Practical Farmer’s Point of View”.

Liberal Mutual Telephone Company Didn’t Like People Sharing Their Service

The people of the Liberal Mutual Telephone Company *really* didn’t want people sharing service with their neighbors and friends.

* * * * *

From Telephony, The American Telephone Journal, July 2, 1910

Good Arguments Against the Borrowing Habit.

Mr. G. H. Dixson, secretary and manager of the Liberal Mutual Telephone Company, Liberal, Missouri, is embarked in an educational campaign against the folly and injustice of “borrowing” telephone service. He is using his directory to convince subscribers that it is to their disadvantage to allow this practice, and unfair to the company, and is producing some matter bearing on this point which is worthy of reproducing in the directories of other companies. There is no question but what it will pay to devote attention to the elimination of this nuisance and expense. The only point for discussion is that of method.

An examination of the following abstracts from the directory of the Liberal Mutual Telephone Company will show that Mr. Dixson has given careful study to the subject, and produced some arguments which should bring results.

‘Important—A Mutual Understanding—We place an instrument in your house or office for the purpose of furnishing only you and your household—which includes your employees and guests stopping with you-—telephone service.

“The rate for this service is one dollar per month for residence, and two dollars for business telephones.

“When non-subscribers ask to use your telephone, it is your duty to see that Central is informed of the fact, that the operator may make arrangements with the party calling to pay the tolls to you, or go to Central or either of the hotels where public pay-stations are installed for their convenience.

“If you permit them to talk out of town without O. K.’ing the call, or talk for them, you will be held responsible for the tolls, which will be charged to your account.

“Telephone service is our stock in trade, and you have no more right to give it away than we would have to give some of your property to another.”

“It is a fact that is becoming more generally known by people who read that as the number of telephones increases, so does the cost of operating each instrument. Many persons may find it hard to credit such a statement, as it is not the usual principle that the increasing volume of business will also increase the average cost, it must be borne in mind, however, that it is the accumulation of calls of a large exchange over a small one that is directly responsible for the increase in cost.

“It is much like the old problem of shoeing a horse at one cent for the first nail, two cents for the second, doubling the price of each nail. The shoeing of a horse year after year would bankrupt a millionaire.

“That is why the non-paying telephone user is becoming a menace to telephone companies all over the land, causing some companies to discard the flat rate system for that of ‘measured service.'”

‘Would you like to pay for a telephone and not be able to use it, while your neighbor uses it and pays nothing?

“That is what you do when you let a non-subscriber use your telephone. He is enjoying the advantages of the whole telephone system without paying, but when you want the non-subscriber you have to go after him. You pay for the service but can’t use it.

“More than that, he keeps the lines busy so that others who are paying for the service can’t get it when they want it.

“Do you think it just?

“Every call put in costs the telephone company money.

“The telephone company needs the money to improve the service. It must all come from those who use it. Do you want to pay it all, or would you like to have the other fellow pay his share?”

“The man who wanted to talk to you on important business was likely in a hurry and couldn’t wait for the ‘dead head,’ who kept the line busy, to ‘ring off.’

“Your line won’t be busy so often if the idle gossiper had to pay for his service. Sava?”

Bee Journal advertised from Liberal, 1881

Below is an ad for The Kansas Bee Keeper from 1881, Liberal, Missouri.

Vol. 1 BEETON, ONTARIO, APRIL 22nd, 1885, No. 4

Established 1881

A 24 Column WEEKLY journal. Devoted exclusively bee-culture, at


Three months on trial for twenty-five cents. Address,
Liberal, Missouri

That Bad Boy Again – Written for the MISSOURI SCHOOL JOURNAL by W. E. Condict, a Liberal, Missouri Teacher, 1896

The below was written by W. E. Condict, a Liberal, Missouri teacher, and published in Missouri School Journal in 1896. As with other generations, it bemoans unruly conduct at school. O. E. Harmon’s

“The Story of Liberal” mentions W. E. Condict as an educator.

* * * * *

Vol. XIII Jefferson City, MO., January, 1896. No. 1

That Bad Boy Again.

Ed. Journal: One of your correspondents brings again to view the picture of the pleasant little school ma’m winning the proverbial bad boy by smiles and confidences. Strange that this picture always includes the same kind of teacher, a winsome little lady. The principle is not a sound one or it would win for others.

Your correspondent incautiously says: “The greeting astonished the pupils,” but he does not add what I have always found to be true, it disgusts the better ones and degrades the feelings of the majority of the school. Would any merchant, or other business man elevate to a foremanship a hand who had thwarted his schemes, interferred with sales, and disorganized his forces? Jf not, then why, in the name of common sense and common decency, elevate “Sam” to a tutor’s place for no other reason and with little other qualification, than that he is a bully and chooses to interfere with and interrupt whatever the teacher or classes undertake to do? The bully, vagabond, loafer, terror of the school is set to lord it over milder mannered and better disposed pupils. Instead of checking his evil tendencies the school ma’m’s smiles and confidences have given them an impetus and lent him a prestige. The chances are he never returns to school another term, but goes out into the community a domineering braggart.

But this is the least of the evil. Pete and Tom and Jack see that the worst boy in the school has gained the greatest success of any boy ever in the school; he has the favor of a charming little lady, he has a quasi authority higher even than the teacher, and they resolve to be like him the next year or the year after. To do this it is not necessary to attend school regularly, but to become as tough as possible.

What of the girls in that school? The teacher has been held up to them as a model. They see the partiality shown to one they know is bad and conclude there must be something nice or grand about scape-grace boys, and girls are in the greatest danger when they begin to doubt the propriety of proper and right things.

The end is not yet. The education of forty other children has been spoiled and their lives tinged with the sentiment that goodness and industry don’t amount to much if you can stalk rough-shod over the rights of others.

This is not a fighting age and it is not necessary for the teacher to thrash every big boy that comes to school. Patrick says the public schools are not reform schools for the reception of boys who are too big and too bad to be controlled at home. There is a breeze of anarchism in our land, and every boy who grows up triumphing in his disregard of parental and school authority throws missiles in the air to be carried onward. Let the teachers lead the people in a healthy sentiment by saying, “I will teach your school in all things right and just and honorable. If you insist on sending, and the school board allows you to send boys who repudiate my instruction and defy my authority, then I will seek employment elsewhere.'”

W. E. Condict, Liberal, Mo.

* * * * *

The 1900 census shows Wayne E. Condict in District 18 in Central, Barton County Missouri. He was born in September of 1850 in Indiana and had been married 24 years. His wife was Susan E., born August 1854 in Illinois. She’d had 5 children, 3 living. In the household were Winnifred G., born 1884 in Missouri, a son, and Rhoda E., born 1886 in Illinois.

He is likely the Wayne Condict, 29 years of age, in District 262 in Union, Barton County, Missouri in 1880, there married to S. E., age 25, the eldest son being a William, 2 years of age.

Telephony Liked Liberal’s Telephone Directory in 1910

The July 2 1910 “Telephony”, the American Telephone Journal, liked Liberal’s telephone directory a lot. As if you needed or desired to know this.

* * * *

Co-operation Between Public and Company Urged in Directory Advertising.

There arc only fourteen inside pages in the directory of the Liberal Mutual Telephone Company of Liberal, Missouri. But the ratio of original ideas to space is as high as in any book of the kind one has ever seen.

The accompanying illustration gives an idea of some of the good things contained in the book. Among other items one finds, “One way to improve telephone service is for every one to help by paying for what he gets.” Under the head “To the Non-Subscriber” is the following: “We rent telephone SERVICE, not the instrument, and people who want their messages transmitted are expected to pay for the service. If you are not a regular subscriber you must pay tolls in advance.” “Is it right for you to ask your neighbor to provide you the means free, for the same kind of service for which he pays?”

TELEPHONY’S readers will probably remember a transmitter marker reproduced in its pages some time ago which was placed on the telephones by G. H. Dixson, manager of this company, for the purpose of discouraging service borrowing. Mr. Dixon states in a letter to TELEPHONY that his plan worked quite well and that many of his subscribers thanked him for putting them on, as they seemed to think it saved them a great deal of the annoyance caused by these service borrowers.

The directory reminders are also helping in his work.

Baldwin v. Walser–Trouble at the Bank

There was trouble in Liberal. George W. Baldwin brought charges of libel against Walser for Walser distributing this in January of 1889:

” ‘ To all whom this may concern :

‘”Notice is hereby given that the copartnership heretofore existing by and between G. W. Baldwin, G. H. Walser, J. G. Pitgen, J. A. Noyes, John Betz, F. L. Yale, Joseph York, J. S. Van Law, P. G. Boulware, Geo. Boulware and R. L. Baldwin, doing business under the firm name and style of the Bank of Liberal, and engaged in the business of private bankers in the town of Liberal, Missouri (meaning the bank herein before mentioned), is hereby dissolved, so far as the undersigned is concerned; and on, and after, this day said parties (meaning the plaintiffs), each of them, are not authorized or permitted to do any business, contract any liabilities, negotiate any loans, or receive deposits of any kind, directly or indirectly, or further prosecute the business of bankers, or further use the name of said firm of the Bank of Liberal in the business aforesaid.

“‘G. H. Walser.’

One wonders what brought that mess on?

* * * * * *



Courts Of Appeals,



FROM APRIL 29, 1890, TO OCTOBER 28, 1890,


-DAVID GOLDSMITH, of the St. Louis Bar,


BEN ELI GUTHRIE, of the Macon City Bar,


Baldwin v. Walser.

We feel scarcely justified in so doing. We have in the record now before us nothing to advise us of just what the issues are in the main case. We discover a petition; but as to whether or not the case shall be tried thereon, whether or not the same may be amended, or whether a demurrer is or may be interposed, or an answer filed, and the nature thereof, or whether in fact there shall be any defense at all, we have no knowledge or means of knowing. Hence we should, in following the course suggested by the learned counsel, be justly charged with declaring the law on a mere moot case—trying nothing but mere supposable legal issues, which we conceive improper

The writ of error herein is dismissed. All concur.

G. W. Baldwin et al., Appellant, v. G. H. Walser, i« 243 Respondent.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, May 12, 1890.

Libel: Notice Of Dissolution Op Partnership Not Actionable : Special Character. The giving of notice by one not a member of a banking firm, that he had withdrawn from it and that it was no longer authorized to do business as far as he was concerned, was of itself harmless. To render language concerning one in a special character or relation actionable, it must touch him in that special character or relation, otherwise it must be adjudged by the rules which apply to language concerning an individual as such. It is not sufficient that such language disparage him or his reputation generally, it must be such as, if true, disqualifies or renders him less fit to properly fulfill the duties incident to the special character ; such as, imputing fraud, want of integrity, or misconduct in the particular line, and occasioning pecuniary loss as a necessary or natural proximate consequence of its publication in writing; and even special damages will not make the language actionable if the words are not defamatory*

Baldwin v. Walser.

2. : : Extraneous Matter. The allegations in the petition that, in consequence of the publication of said notice of dissolution of the partnership, a general loss of custom had resulted to plaintiffs, and many people were prevented from transacting business with them, and their commercial and financial standing were reduced, do not render the publication libelous.

8. Partnership: Action At Law Against Partners. Several partners cannot maintain an action at law for ‘damages against a copartner.

4. : Dissolution : Damages. A partner has a right to withdraw from the firm and make his withdrawal effectual by giving notice thereof, and, though serious loss to the firm may be the natural and probable result of such withdrawal, no damages could ordinarily be recovered therefor,

Appeal from the Barton Circuit Court.—Hox* D. P. Stratton, Judge.


Buler & Timmonds, for appellant.

(1) The demurrer admits the falsehood in the publication, and the malice in the publisher. Townsend on Libel, note to p. 350; BoogJier v. Knapp, 76 Mo. 467. The publications being admitted to be false, the malice of the publisher also being admitted, it cannot be, on demurrer, claimed as a privileged publication; for, if false and malicious, it cannot be privileged. Townsend on Libel, sec. 245. “Privileged publication” is a matter of defense only to be pleaded and proven as any other defense. Townsend, sec. 208, et seq., and sec.

245 ; 3 Sutherland on Damages, 653. (2) The publication is libelous per se. .Hermann t>. Bradstreet Co.,’19 Mo. App. 227; Townsend, sees. 146, 147, 150, 181, 182, 191, note on p. 279, notes on pp. 279, 298, 299. (3) If the publication should be held not to be libelous per se, it is, nevertheless, libelous by reason of the special injuries and damages alleged in petition. A general loss of customers is alleged.- Many people have been

Baldwin v. Walser.

prevented from transacting business with plaintiffs. The bank is greatly reduced in its commercial and financial standing. Loss of customers is so manifestly special damage that it is unnecessary to state the cases in detail. 3 Sutherland on Damages, p. 666, and cases cited, p. 667, and cases cited. Weiss v. Whitlemore, 28 Mich. 373. If the petition is not sufficiently specific as to injuries and damages, defendant’s remedy would have been by motion to make more specific, definite and certain, and not by demurrer.

R. J. Tucker and G. H. Walser, for respondent.

(1) The demurrer only admits facts well pleaded, and does not admit the unwarranted applications in the innuendo, and statement outside of the matter complained of, not legitimately deduced from the wording of the publication. Dannan v. Coleman, 8 Mo. App. 695; Kleekamp i). Meyer, 5 Mo. App. 444; Boogher V. Knapp, 76 Mo. 457; State ex rel. v. Evert, 52 Mo. 95. (2) The publication complained of is not actionable per se. It raises no imputation of malice in the publication. It is simply a notice of a dissolution of a copartnership, ” so far as the publisher was concerned.” To make it actionable per se, its legitimate import must blacken the reputation of the appellants, or expose them to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or, if true, disqualify them, or unfit them, for business as bankers, for moral turpitude, want of skill, honesty or standing, as men. Legg ». Dunlevy, 80 Mo. 558; Townsend on Libel and Slander, sec. 190; Fitzgerald v. Itedfleld, 51 Barb. 484 ; Odgers on Libel and Slander, 65 ; Nelson v. Margrave, 10 Mo. 648 ; Hermann v. Bradstreet Co., 19 Mo. App. 227 ; Price v. WJtitely, 50 Mo. 439 ; Legg v. Dunlevy, 10 Mo. App. 461; Brooker v. Coffin, 5 Johns. 191; Martin v. Sulwell, 13 Johns. 275 ; Rammel v. Otis, 60 Mo. 35 ; Fry v. Bennet, 15 Sand. 54; More n. Bennett, 33 Howard, 177; Bennett v. Williamson, 4 Sand.
Baldwin v. Walser.

60; More v. Bennett, 48 Barb. 229. (3) Where the publication is not actionable per se, and where the ordinary meaning of the words does not convey the meaning assigned to them, the petition must contain a statement of extrinsic facts necessary to make a cause of action. Curry v. Collins, 37 Mo. 324; Christal «. Craig, 80 Mo. 357 ; Wood v. Hilftsh, 23 Mo. App. 389 ; Salvatillo v. Ohio, 9 Mo. App. 155; Chitty’s Pleadings [10 Am. Ed.] 400; Legg v. Dunleoy, 80 Mo. 558; McMannis t. Jackson, 28 Mo. 68; Sunday t>. Heart, 46 Mo. 460; Masley v. Mass, 6 Gratt, 638; Stewart -o. Wilson, 23 Minn. 449 ; Tappen v. Wilson, 7 Ohio, 193; Estee’s Pleading, sec. 3635; Maynard v. Ins. Co., 47 Cal. 210; Wilson v. Fitch, 41 Cal. 378. (4) The innuendo cannot enlarge or change the ordinary meaning of the language used. Qreeley v. Cooper, 1 Denio, 347; Tappen v. Wilson, 7 Ohio, 194. (6) The plaintiffs, suing in the special character of private bankers, must show that it referred to them in the capacity in which they sue. Townsend on Libel and Slander, 290. (6) The petition, as a whole, shows that appellants and respondent were partners, and that the publication complained of related to them in their partnership capacity. One partner cannot sue another at law. Kelley’s Treatise, 677, 678, 679 ; Bank v. Bemis, 65 Mo. 624. (7) A partner may dissolve the firm at pleasure. 3 Kent, Com. [12 Ed.] 53. (8) If a retiring partner wishes to protect himself from the mismanagement or liabilities of the old firm which he retires from, the law makes it his duty to give notice to the public of his withdrawal. Dowzelot v. Rawlings, 58 Mo. 75 ; 3 Kent, Com. [12 Ed.] 63. (9) The pleader must rely upon some specific cause of action ; they cannot rely upon the publication as being actionable per se, and, if they fail in that, sustain themselves by reason of the averment of “special injuries and damages.” Robinson a. Rice, 20 Mo. 235. (10) Averment of general loss of business will only lie when the words are actionable per

Baldwin v. Walser,

se. Where the publication is not actionable per se, and the plaintiff suffers injury by the loss of customers, the names of the customers must be set out. Ins. Co. v. Mcclesine, 6 Abbott (N. S.) 9. (11) The petition avers that the defendant, contriving and falsely and fraudulently intending to injure the ” Bank of Liberal,” and these “plaintiffs in their good credit and reputation, and also in their said business as private bankers.” Here are three different causes of action set up,—one in favor of the Bank of Liberal, one in favor of the individual members of the firm, and in such a cause of action they cannot sue jointly. Dvffy v. Gray, 62 Mo. 628. And one for injuries to their business, which cannot be joined with injury to the members. Duffy ». Gray, 52 Mo. 628; Collyer on Partnerships, sec. 680; Story on Partnership, sees. 256, 257; Townsend on Libel and Slander, 381; Selwin, Nisi Prius, p. 1260; Town, on Libel and Slander, 201. The petition shows upon its face that the publication is in the nature of a legal proceeding to dissolve a copartnership, and, therefore, privileged. Gilbert v. People, 1 Denio, 41.

Smith, P. J.—This suit was instituted in the circuit court of Barton county to recover damages for an alleged libel. The defendant filed a demurrer to the petition on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which was by the court sustained. The plaintiffs declining to further plead, judgment was rendered in favor of the demurrant. The plaintiffs bring the case here by appeal.

The petition was as follows: “The above-named plaintiffs complain and allege that, on the day of January, 1889, long prior thereto, and every since that date, they were engaged in carrying on a banking business, as private bankers, under the style and name of ‘Bank of Liberal,’ at the town of Liberal, in Barton county, Missouri. That at, and prior to, the date aforesaid, plaintiffs, as such private bankers, under the name

Baldwin v. Walser.

of the Bank of Liberal, had built up, and maintained, a good, profitable and paying banking business at said town of Liberal; had merited and won the confidence and esteem of men of large means, who had become, and were, regular customers and depositors of said bank, and also the confidence and esteem of numerous banking institutions throughout the state of Missouri and many other states; and were largely engaged in negotiating loans, receiving deposits and transacting a general banking business. That said plaintiffs, as such private bankers, at the date aforesaid, long prior thereto and ever since then, were, and are, duly and lawfully authorized to transact a general banking business, to contract liabilities, negotiate loans and receive deposits in the name of the Bank of Liberal. That the defendant, well knowing the premises, but contriving and falsely and fraudulently intending to injure said Bank of Liberal and these plaintiffs in their good credit and reputation, and also in their said business as private bankers, and to cause it to be suspected and believed that said Bank of Liberal had been dissolved and plaintiffs were wrongfully and unlawfully engaged in the banking business, and had no right or authority to longer engage in the banking business, at said tfvii of Liberal, nor any right or authority to contract liabilities, negotiate loans, receive deposits, nor prosecute the business of bankers, nor use the name of the Bank of Liberal; and, also, contriving and falsely and fraudulently intending to injure and destroy the custom and business which plaintiffs had built up as aforesaid ; and to prevent persons from depositing their means with said bank, and from negotiating loans at said bank; and to injure said bank in its good credit and reputation with its correspondent banks in this and other states, and to vex, harass, oppress and injure the plaintiffs, did, on the day of January, 1889, at the county and state aforesaid, wrongfully and maliciously and injuriously compose and publish, and caused to be

Baldwin v. Walser.

published, of, and concerning, plaintiffs and their said bank a certain, false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libel in the way of, and in respect to, their said business as bankers; which said false, scandalous and defamatory libel is, and was, of the tenor following, that is to say :

” ‘ To all whom this may concern :

‘”Notice is hereby given that the copartnership heretofore existing by and between G.W. Baldwin, G. H. Walser, J. G. Pitgen, J. A. Noyes, John Betz, F. L. Yale, Joseph York, J. S. Van Law, P. G. Boulware, Geo. Boulware and R. L. Baldwin, doing business under the firm name and style of the Bank of Liberal, and engaged in the business of private bankers in the town of Liberal, Missouri (meaning the bank hereinbefore mentioned), is hereby dissolved, so far as the undersigned is concerned; and on, and after, this day said parties (meaning the plaintiffs), each of them, are not authorized or permitted to do any business, contract any liabilities, negotiate any loans, or receive deposits of any kind, directly or indirectly, or further prosecute the business of bankers, or further use the name of said • firm of the Bank of Liberal in the business aforesaid.

“‘G. H. Walser.’

” That said defendant signed said false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libel, and wrongfully, maliciously and injuriously procured the same to be published in the Messenger, a newspaper regularly published in said town of Liberal, and largely circulated in said town, county and state; and also falsely, wrongfully and maliciously and injuriously sent, and procured to be sent, to many of plaintiffs’ depositors in said bank and to plaintiffs’ banking correspondents in other cities and states, copies of said false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libel.

” That by means of the premises the plaintiffs and the said Bank of Liberal have greatly been injured in

Baldwin v. Walser.

their credit and reputation aforesaid, and have and are suspected to have been guilty of the misconduct so as aforesaid mentioned to have been charged upon and imputed to them, and to have conducted themselves dishonorably, injudiciously, improperly and unlawfully in undertaking to transact a banking business at the town of Liberal as aforesaid ; and many of their said customers, depositors and bank correspondents, as well as the people generally, have been caused to suspect and believe that plaintiffs are, and have been, wrongfully and unlawfully engaged in the business of banking, as private bankers, and have no right or authority to do any business, contract any liabilities, negotiate any loans, or receive deposits of any kind, directly or indirectly, or to prosecute the business of bankers, or to use the name of the said firm of the Bank of Liberal in the business aforesaid. And many of plaintiffs’ depositors, by reason thereof, have withdrawn from said bank their deposits ; many other people have been thereby prevented from transacting any banking business with plaintiffs; many of their banking correspondents have lost confidence in said Bank of Liberal; and said Bank of Liberal has been greatly reduced in its commercial and financial standing ; and plaintiffs have been greatly vexed, harassed, oppressed and injured, and lost and been deprived of divers great gains and profits, which, but for said libel, would have arisen and accrued to them in their said business as private bankers ; and have been and are greatly injured and damaged, in the sum of ten thousand dollars ; for which sum and for costs plaintiffs pray judgment.”

The demurrer controverts the conclusions of the pleading, but, not denying the facts which are therein well pleaded, it by necessary implication admits their truth. Bliss on Code Plead., sec. 418. The defendant was not a member of said banking firm as we must infer from the petition was the fact. Then the giving of notice that he had withdrawn from it and that it was no longer authorized to do any business as far as he was concerned was of itself harmless, unless there is something else in it of a libelous character. The rule is that in order to render language concerning one in a special character or relation actionable “it must touch him” in that special character or relation ; for, unless it does, it must be judged in regard to its actionable quality by the rules which apply to language concerning an individual as such. It is not sufficient that the language disparages him generally, or that his general reputation is thereby affected, it must be such as, if true, would disqualify him or render him less fit properly to fulfill the duties incident to the special character assumed. Townsend on Libel and Slander, sec. 190. And in the authority just cited it is further stated in section 191, in those trades or professions in which ordinarily credit is essential to their successful prosecution, language is actionable per se which imputes to one in any such trade or profession a want of credit or responsibility or insolvency past, present or future. Language concerning one in his trade or profession to be actionable per se must impute to him fraud, want of integrity or misconduct in the line of his business or profession whereby he gains his bread. Every publication of language concerning a man or his affairs, which, as a necessary or natural proximate consequence, occasions pecuniary loss, is prima facie a libel if the publication be by writing. The statute of this state (section 1591, Revised Statutes) declares : “A libel is the malicious defamation of a person made public by any printing, writing, sign, picture, representation or effigy tending to provoke him to wrath or expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to deprive him of the benefits of public confidence and social intercourse, or any malicious defamation made public as aforesaid, designed to blacken or vilify the memory of one who is dead and tending to scandalize or provoke his surviving relations and friends.” Similar definitions to that given in the

Baldwin v. Walser.

statute just referred are to be found among the cases which have been adjudged in the appellate courts of this state. Nelson v. Margrave, 10 Mo. 648; Price v. Whitely, 60 Mo. 439; Legg v. Dunleoy, 80 Mo. 663; Hermann v. Bradstreet Co., 19 Mo. App. 227. In some of these cases the definition there given of libel is broader and more comprehensive than that given in the statute ? As already intimated we think the publication contains no statement that is libelous per se. The words of the publication, though they relate to the plaintiffs in their business capacity, do not on their face bear any injurious meaning. Interpreting the words of the publication as therein collocated according to their usual and ordinary meaning, and it is quite clear that they do not fall within the definition of libel as declared in the statute and adjudicated cases of this state.

If the publication is a libel on the plaintiffs in their business, it must be so on account of some extrinsic fact alleged in the petition. The universal rule is that, if the words are not libelous per se, the petition must by preliminary averments show extrinsic facts from which the libel results. Pollard v. Lyon, 91 U. S. 225; Legg v. Dunlevy, supra; McManus v. Jackson, 28 Mo. 68; Salvatelli v. Ohio, 9 Mo. App. 155. The nature of the present action is that of special damages actually sustained in consequence of words written and published by defendant, and, unless such damage is the natural and probable consequences qf those words and of that publication, the defendant cannot be held liable. And the special damage will not help plaintiffs if the words are not defamatory. Legg v. Dunlevy, 10 Mo. App. 461; Young v. McCrea, 3 Best & S. 264.

The plaintiffs contend that the averment in the petition of these extrinsic facts, viz.: First. “General loss of customers. Second. Many people were prevented from transacting business with the bank, and third, their reduced commercial and financial standing,”

Baldwin v. Walser.

renders the publication libelous. Were these injuries to plaintiffs in their special quality as bankers the natural and probable consequences of the words of the publication? The demurrer admits that the publication was untrue. Now, if it was untrue that the defendant was a member of said banking firm, as stated in the publication, then the declaring of the dissolution of the firm was a vain act—was nothing. And it must inevitably further follow that if the defendant was not a member of the plaintiffs’ firm that it was no more authorized after than before said publication to transact any business to bind him. It is quite difficult to perceive how the extrinsic facts alleged in the petition in respect to said publication show that the damages therein specially stated could naturally and probably result from the publication. It is incomprehensible how a banking firm could lose depositors or the confidence of its correspondent banks or the banking business of the public generally because some reputable or disreputable person had falsely published a notice that his partnership relations with it have terminated and that it was no longer authorized to transact business as far as he is concerned, or how such injuries would naturally and probably result from such publication.

On the other hand if, as is conceded, it was untrue that defendant had dissolved his partnership relations with plaintiffs, and that it was untrue that they, in their partnership capacity, were no longer authorized to transact a banking business in the name of said firm so as to bind defendant, then this action is by several partners against a single one for damages in an action at law which cannot be maintained. Bank v. Beans, 65 Mo. 624; Scott v. Caruth, 50 Mo. 120 ; Fuert v. Brown, 23 Mo. App. 332. Damages would not be recoverable in such case even in a proceeding in equity. Gaty v. Tyler, 33 Mo. App. 494; Fletcher v. Heed, 121 Mass. 312. If the publication related to the firm and the defendant was a member of it, then we have the singular spectacle of ten members of a partnership suing the eleventh member for damages resulting from the wrongful conduct of the latter in respect to the partnership. This is the reductio ad absurdum of the argument on this line. The withdrawal of a partner from any business firm might very naturally and probably subject it to serious loss and yet no damages could ordinarily be recovered therefor, and if none could be recovered for the act it must needs follow that none could be recovered for making it effectual by giving notice of it to the world. It would be his duty to give the notice in such case. Dowzelot v. jRawlings, 58 Mo. 75; Pope & West v. Risley, 23 Mo. 185.

We are unable to discover any charge in the publication or in the extrinsic facts alleged in respect thereto, which constitutes a cause of action. The judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

A Debate Over “Free Love” at Liberal Ended in Expulsion of Some Free Love Proponents

Sexual promiscuity is the first thing that springs to the minds of some regarding the term “free love”, but the Free Love movement of the 19th century was closely tied with feminism, having everything to do with individualism and the rights of women and children (for instance, those born out of wedlock). One needs to recall that only in the late 1800’s did states begin to recognize spousal abuse as a crime.

Not every camp associated with “free love” in the 19th century was “free love”. The Oneida Community is often raised as an example of a free love community when instead members signed over rights of self-determination to Noyes, and sex and childbirth were highly regulated activities in which the women, especially those of childbearing years, had little voice, if any.

In This Strange Town – Liberal, Missouri, J. P. Moore, addressing the Free Love movement in Liberal, distinguished free love from common-law marriage, defining it as “the promiscuous intermingling of the sexes without any marital restrictions–basically, without any form of marriage–every woman every man’s wife and every man every woman’s husband. This is the primitive law of the herd.”

Was there an element at Liberal who wanted polyandry to be at least an open option for those who wished to live in this manner, or did they desire it to be the rule of the community? We don’t know, we’re not supplied with that information. Regardless the discussion, the violence that ensued was, of course, unwarranted.

* * * * *

LIBERTY Issued Fortnightly at One Dollar a Year: Single Copies Five Cents
Benj. R. Tucker – Editor and Publisher
A. P. Kelly – Associate Editor

Office of Publication 16 P. O. Square

Boston, Mass July 17 1886

Fighting for Free Speech in Liberal

“Equity” is the name of a new fortnightly journal published in that misnamed town, Liberal, Missouri, by Henry P. and Georgia Replogle. It is a tiny sheet, but a brave one. Announcing its object as “emancipation from sex, wages, monopolistic, and custom slavery, and State superstition,” its tone thus far seems pretty genuinely Anarchistic. One thing appears certain, — that it is waging a courageous battle for free speech in one of the most despotic and authoritarian communities in America.

G. H. Walser, the founder of the town of Liberal, is evidently as thorough-going a tyrant as can be found anywhere. Beginning, as Owen proposes to begin at Sinaloa, by forbidding his fellow townsmen to establish churches or saloons, he has now reached the point where he is ready to supervise their morals in other respects. The name of the town has naturally attracted from time to time many really liberal people, most of whom have speedily gone away again. But there have always been enough of them on hand to constitute a thorn in the side of the tyrant Walser. The thorn just now seems to be Replogles. It appears that they and a few of their friends are out-and-out free lovers, and are damaging the reputation of Liberal for purity by advocating their doctrine in “Equity.” Tyrant Walser thinks this will never do. So, with the aid of his hall devoted to “Universal Mental Liberty” and his paper also misnamed the “Liberal,” he has begun a campaign to drive out the offenders. His first step was to import still another misnomer, a “freethought lecturer,” whose other name is C. W. Stewart. The auxiliary delivered a lecture on morality at Liberal, which Walser reported as follows in the”Liberal”:

“The speaker handled that social evil called free love without gloves. He divested the hydra monster of its gaudy vestment, ripped open its rotten carcass, and exposed its foul hideousness in all its forms to public gaze that it might be seen as it really was.

“This lecture seemed to be called on the account of the frequent attempts of would-be reformers to subordinate the people of Liberal to polyandry (illegible), lust and debauchery, all under the sweet-scented name of free love.

“After the lecture was over, those of the audience who endorsed the sentiments uttered by Mr. Stewart were requested to rise to their feet. At once the vast audience with but few exceptions rose. The reverse side was then put, and those not agreeing with the sentiments of the speaker were a scene which was heartrending indeed. A brazen young man, whose aged mother was in the audience, and who has bright, pure, and intelligent sisters, who would naturally expect a brother’s protection and a brother’s defence of their honor, arose and placed himself among those whose lustful gratification was held paramount to the purity of mother, sister, wife or daughter. A shriek was wrung from that old mother’s heart which evinced a sense of pain a thousand times worse than would be the fact should death strike the liveliest flower from the family. The scene was so painful that tears flowed from the strongest eyes in sympathy for the poor mother, with a corresponding feeling of disgust for the brazen wretch who stood unmoved, as dead to shame, before his mother’s sinking, bleeding, broken heart.”

This pathetic picture has another side. The following plain statement of facts taken from “Equity” forms a striking contrast to those mock heroics.

“On Sunday evening, June 27, C. W. Stewart gave a lecture in the Opera House of this place on sexual morality, in which he found occasion to recommend shot gun and boot logic for those who should attempt to teach his family other than that he had been preaching. G. H. Walser then arose, and, endorsing all of Stewart’s mobocratic speech, added that this objectionable element referred to by Stewart should be led to the outskirts of the town and invited to leave, and other expressions in the same strain. He then called a rising vote of the assembly endorsing Stewart’s speech. The most of the people arose. He then called for those who did not endorse it. Four only arose, — Owram, Thayer, Youmans, and myself, objecting each of us to some of his expressions. Numbers cried out against any of the four being heard, but finally all were. Walser ordered me to “shut up” repeatedly, though he was not chairman.

On Tuesday morning, about two a.m., as a result of Walser’s violence-inciting speeches, a mob came to my door and demanded to see Mr. Youmans. When he asked what was wanted, they demanded an explanation of his conduct at the hall on Sunday evening. On being adversely answered, these midnight executors of Walser, Stewart & Co. gave Mr. Youmans twenty-four hours to leave, stoned the house, fired several shot into it, and left a long dirk at the gate of the yard.

These are the agents and agencies for spreading freethought and ‘Universal Mental Liberty,’ the motto inscribed on the hall. I would prefer that Walser, Stewart, & Co., lead their own reformatory schemes at midnight themselves.”

Tyrant Walser, who fathered this outbreak of mob law, is violently opposed to Anarchy under the pretense that it means mob law in place of ‘law and order.’ He has not yet to learn that the difference between Archy and Anarchy is not entirely included in the distinction between mob and police. Mobs are often intensely Archistic, while the police of a voluntary association might be purely Anarchistic. The vital difference is to be looked for in the purposes for which either uses its strength. If the purpose is invasion, the force is Archistic; if the purpose is protection and defence, the force is Anarchistic. Walser and his mob are unquestionably invaders and Archists of a very offensive type.

I was considering the advisability of prodding my old friend, Jay Chaapel, who has lately been editing the “Liberal” for Walser, for aiding and abetting his master in such outrageous conduct; but I am relieved by the arrival of a later number of the paper, in which Mr. Chaapel severs his connection with it. Knowing his past record, I could not believe that he would stultify himself by allowing himself to be used for such purposes. I hope the Replogles will keep up their gallant fight, and that real Liberals and Anarchists will support them in it by subscribing for “Equity,” which costs but fifty cents a year.

It is also to be noted that “Lucifer” is threatened with prosecution in consequence of its use of plain language in discussing sexual questions. There are evidently clearer instances of the denial of free speech than anything that has happened at Chicago, but I fail to hear a lisp about them from any of the men who are so excited because I am not as frantic as themselves concerning the fate of the men on trial in that city. In denouncing the ravings of the authorities and the press over the throwing of the bomb, I recently had occasion to say: “One would think that the throwing of this bomb was the first act of violence ever committed under the sun.” It now seems appropriate to remark that there are some people who imagine that there are no offenders against free speech outside of the Chicago police force.

* * * * *

I’ve checked the 1900 census of Barton County, Missouri for the names Youmans, Thayer, Owran, Replogle and Jay Chaapel and I’ve not found them. As stated in the article above, Youmans was tossed out of town. As we’ll see below, the Replogles moved as well. Jay Chaapel, having severed his connection with Walser, would have been soon out of town also.

Orrin Harmon made brief mention of Youmans in his The Story of Liberal, Missouri:

Soon after the founding of the town steps were taken toward providing instruction for the young. The first educational institution was the “Instruction School.” One Professor Youmans was superintendent.

The University of Michigan Library has papers of Jay Chaapel in their archives:

Chaapel family.
Papers, 1852-1942, bulk 1874-1899. 60 items.
List of correspondents available.

Consist primarily of writings by Jay Chaapel (1829-1902)—freethinker, spiritualist, lecturer, and editor—on a variety of topics: Shaker communities in New England, including a biographical essay on Ann Lee; descriptions of places in Maine, ca. 1898; the death of John Brown as remembered by Elizabeth Richards Tilton, whose husband Theodore Tilton had assisted with the burial; and thoughts on spiritualism, love and marriage, women’s rights, people, and events. There are holograph copies of writings by others, including extracts from 16 letters, 1793-95, of Mary Wollstonecraft to Gilbert Imlay, accompanied by extensive biographical notes on Wollstonecraft. Correspondence includes an 1879 letter from an elderly Shaker sister criticizing the celibate life, three letters from Jay Chaapel to his first wife, Calphurnia Crofut, a few letters of other family members, including his children (Harry, Ralph, and Belle Chaapel), and one letter from Jacob Sechler Coxey to Belle Chaapel concerning the death of John Basil Barnhill.

Wendy McElroy notes in her An Overview of Individualist Anarchism, 1881-1908,

Georgia and Henry Replogle’s Equity (1886-1887), was a fortnightly journal from the experimental town of Liberal, Missouri, which had been founded by freethinkers to demonstrate the virtues of churchlessness. Equity stated its purpose to be the “emancipation from sex, wage, monopolistic and custom slavery, and state superstition.” Tucker described it as “a tiny sheet, but a brave one.”(31) Apparently, the tiny sheet was too brave. A mob forced the Replogles to leave town.

In Anarchism: its philosophy and scientific basis as defined by some of its Apostles, by Albert Richard Parsons, published in 1887 by the Parsons, I find the following at the rear, listing Georgia Replogle as a contributor then living in California:

The Alarm
Founded by Albert R. Parsons
A Journal of Anarchism

Dyer D. Lum – – Editor

Special Contributors

Lizze M. Swank, Illinois
Georgia Replogle, California
C. L. James, Wisconsin
Jos. Labadie, Michigan
G. C. Clemens, Kansas
Gertrude B. Kelly, New York
John F. Kelly, New York
Geo. Schumm, Minnesota
Albert Currlin, Missouri
W. C. Owen, Oregon

In the publication (its foreward is written by Albert Parsons from Cell 29 in a Chicago jail) we find repeated examples of how the more things change the more they remain the same:

Ever since the organization of the Government of the United States there has existed among the people a small, but earnest minority, known as “Abolitionists,” because they advanced the abstract right of ” all men” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” But the Abolitionists were an insignificant minority. Their demands were never heeded until the requirements of modern capitalism began to require an extension of the system of wage labor in preference to the system of chattel-slave labor. Capital invested in wage labor and capital invested in chattel slave labor were hostile in their interests. The slave-holding interests were more sensitive and apprehensive of injury and were in consequence easily mobilized on the political battle-field. From the organization of the Government up to the slave-holders’ rebellion in 1861 the propertied interests in chattel-slaves had practical control and directioa (Google text weirdness there) of the affairs of Government.


Capitalism—Its Development In The United States.—Continued.

With the termination of the war of 1861 began the second epoch of capitalism in the United States. The ex-chattel slave was enfranchised, —made a political sovereign. He was now a “freeman” without an inch of soil, a cent of money, a stitch of clothes or a morsel of food. He was free to compete with his fellow wage-worker for an opportunity to serve capital. The conditions of his freedom consisted in the right to work on the terms dictated by his employer, or—starve. There no longer existed any sectional conflicts or other conflicts of a disturbing political nature. All men were now “free and equal before the law.” A period of unprecedented activity in capitalistic circles set in. Steam and electricity applied to machinery was employed in almost every department of industry, and compared with former times fabulous wealth was created.

Political parties, no longer divided in interest upon property questions, all legislation was centered upon a development of the resources of the country. To this end vast tracts of goverment land, amounting to many million acres, equalling in extent seven states the size of Illinois were donated as subsidies to the projectors of railways. The national debt, incurred to prosecute the rebellion, and amounting to three billion dollars was capitalized, by creating interest upon the bonds. Hundreds of millions were given as bonuses to proposed railways, steamship lines, etc. A protective tariff law was enacted which for the past twenty years has imposed a tax upon the people amounting to one billion dollars annually. A National Banking system was established which gave control of finance to a banking monopoly. By means of these and other laws capitalist combinations, monopolies, syndicates, and trusts were created and fostered, until they obtained absolute control of the principle avenues of industry, commerce and trade. Arbitrary prices are fixed by these combinations and the consumers—mainly the poor—are compelled by their necessities to pay whatever price is exacted. Thus during the past twenty-five years,—since the abolition of the chattel-slave labor system—twenty-five thousand millionaires have been created, who by their combinations control and virtually own the fifty billion dollars estimate wealth of the United States, while on the other hand twenty million wage workers have been created whose poverty forces them into a ceaseless competition with each other for opportunity to earn the bare necessities of existence. What had, therefore, required generations to accomplish in Great Britain and the continent, was achieved during the past twenty-five years in the United States, to wit: The practical destruction of the middle-class (small dealers, farmers, manufacturers, etc.), and the division of society into two classes—the wage worker and capitalist. While the fabulous fortunes resulting from legislation enacted in the name of the people were being acquired, the people were not conscious of the evil effects which would flow from those laws. Not until the evil effects were felt were they aware of the slavery to which they had been lawfully reduced. The first great pinch of the laws was felt throughout the whole country in the financial panic of 1873-77, resulting in the latter year in wide-spread strikes of the unemployed and poorly paid wage class. In response to the demand for information upon economic matters, Bureaus of Labor were established in many States, as also for the general government at Washington. These statistics related to operations and effects of capitalism in the chief departments of industry and trade. The absorption of the smaller industries etc., etc., into the great corporations, syndicates, etc., was very rapid. The National commercial agency (Bradstreet’s) furnished statistics showing unprecedented bankruptcies.

From 1890 to 1898, Henry and Georgia Replogle were in Oakland, California publishing, “Egoism”, which ran the first few chapters of James L. Walker’s The Philosophy of Egoism.

Article on Liberal by the Workers of the Writers Program of the Work Projects Administration, 1941

Back when writers were considered as being worthwhile individuals, I guess, and given jobs in which they got to write, or compile, whatever.

* * * * *

MISSOURI A Guide to the “Show Me” State
Compiled by Workers of the Writers Program of the Work Projects Administration in the State of Missouri

Copyright 1941
The Missouri State Highway Department

2. Right on US 160 to a junction, 9.9 m., with State 43 a graveled road; R. to County K, 14.5 m; L. to LIBERAL, 17.1 m. (885 alt, 771 pop.) founded in 1880 by G. H. Walser (1843-1920), a disciple of Robert G. Ingersoll. Walser, born in Indiana, served in the Civil War, and lived for a time in Rockport before moving to Larmar, where he conceived the idea of establishing a refuge for free-thinkers. Walser purchased land and platted Liberal. Within a few months, a settlement of enthusiasts, ranging from “out and out Agnostics to the more spiritual minded Deists and Spiritualists,” developed. According to “Camp’s Emigrants Guide” of May 1883, the citizens of Liberal “boast…they have no church, no preacher, or priests, no saloon…They have no hell, no God, no devil, no debauchery, no drunkenness. They believe in but one world at a time, and a heaven of their own making.” Although they “practiced the art of doing good, being happy, industrious, sober and independent,” the community aroused opposition locally and nationally. Unperturbed, Walser built the Universal Mental Liberty Hall, “to proved a place where any person could come and speak on any subject,” and established in 1884 the Liberal Normal School, advertised as providing an education free “from the bis of Christian theology,” which announced in 1885 that it had 113 students representing 7 States. Walser’s semimonthly magazine “The Orthopoedian” was published until 1900. In 1881 “an addition” to Liberal was established by H. H. Waggoner, who invited only orthodox Christians to move in. The Liberalites answered by erecting a barbed wire fence between the two settlements “to keep the Christians out,” and in in 1883 Walser bought the Christian suburb outright. Meanwhile he had become interested in spiritualism, and seances were regularly held until about 1887 when a fire exposed the spiritual manifestations as a fake. The last spiritualistic camp meeting in Liberal was held in Catalpa Park in 1899. Since Walser’s death in 1910 the community has lost much of its original character. The FRED SACKETT COLLECTION (open 8-5 weekdays), office Municipal Light and Water Company, Main St., contains approximately 4,000 Indian relics, the majority of which are of Osage and Sauk origin.

Southward to Carthage, the route enters the Springfield plateau, an area in which dairying is a major industry. Few if any of the herds are large, but nearly all are of improved stock.

The Carthage area is underlaid with marble and limestone, as well as lead, zinc and other minerals. “Carthage White Marble” came into prominence of 1880, when C. W. Fisher, a stonecutter, exhibited a highly polished specimen, and in time secured a national market. Marble quarried in the area has been used by architects in some of America’s best-known buildings, including the Macy department-store building, New York, the Field and Rosenwald museums in Chicago, and the Rust Building, San Francisco.

* * * * *

The Orthopoedian? That’s the name of a freethought magazine destined not to be remembered. Sounds like freethought delivered in a brown paper wrapper that will go unnoticed by the postman, friends and casual passerby.

“Hmmm. What’s that they’re reading? The Orthopoedian? Do I really want to learn about the muscular-skeletal system today? Wonder if they’ve got a copy of McClure’s?”

I would like to have been a fly on the wall during the meeting where the name was proposed.

Incorporated the initial bit on Carthage as my Noyes grandmother settled in Carthage and I spent a number of summers there.