has struck another, he should himself be struck; ‘very hard,’ says Jane, ‘so hard, that he will be afraid ever to strike anybody again.’
On the contrary, thought Horace Greeley
, when any one has wantonly or unjustly struck another, he should be so severely forgiven, and made so thoroughly ashamed of himself, that he will ever after shrink from striking a wanton or an unjust blow.
Sound maxims, both
; the first, for Jane, the second, for Horace.
His good humor was, in truth, naturally imperturbable.
He was soon the recognized obliging man of the office; the person relied upon always when help was needed—a most inconvenient kind of reputation.
Among mechanics, money is generally abundant enough on Sundays and Mondays; and they spend it freely on those days.
Tuesday and Wednesday, they are only in moderate circumstances.
The last days of the week are days of pressure and borrowing, when men are in a better condition to be treated than to treat.
was the man who had money always; he was as rich apparently on Saturday afternoon as on Sunday morning, and as willing to lend.
In an old memorandum-book belonging to one of his companions in those days, still may be deciphered such entries as these: “ Borrowed of Horace Greeley
“Owe Horace Greeley
, 9s. 6d.”
“Owe Horace Greeley
, 2s. 6d, for a breastpin.”
He never refused to lend his money.
To himself, he allowed scarcely anything in the way of luxury or amusement; unless, indeed, an occasional purchase of a small share in a lottery-ticket may be styled a luxury.
Lotteries were lawful in those days, and Chatham-street was where lottery-offices moat abounded.
It was regarded as a perfectly respectable and legitimate business to keep a lottery-office, and a perfectly proper and moral action to buy a lottery-ticket.
The business was conducted openly and fairly, and under official supervision; not as it now is, by secret and irresponsible agents in all parts of the city and country.
Whether less money, or more, is lost by lotteries now than formerly, is a question which, it is surprising, no journalist has determined.
Whether they cause less or greater demoralization is a question which it were well for moralists to consider.
Of the few incidents which occurred to relieve the monotony of