He painted the top of his fence green, last year, so it would “kind of combinate with his blinds.”
If he would make his big words “combinate” with what he means a little better, he would not attract so much attention. But he don't care. He hates to see a big, fat word loafing around with nothing to do, so he throws one in occasionally for exercise, I guess.
In the Minnesota legislature, in 1867, they had under discussion a bill to increase the per diem of members from three dollars to five dollars. A member of the lower house, who voted for the measure, was hauled over the coals by one of his constituents and charged with corruption in no unmeasured terms. To all this the legislator calmly answered that when he got down to the capital and found out the awful price of board, he concluded that his “per diadem” ought to be increased, and so he supported the measure. Then the belligerent constituent said:
“I beg your pardon and acquit you of all charges of corruption, for a legislator who does not know the difference between a crown of glory and the price of a day's work is too big a blankety blanked fool to be convicted of an intentional wrong.”
Petticoats at the Polls.
There have been many reasons given, first and last, why women should not vote, but I desire to say, in the full light of a ripe experience, that some of them are fallacious. I refer more particularly to the argument that it will degrade women to go to the polls and vote like a little man. While I am not and have never been a howler for female suffrage, I must admit that it is much more of a success than prohibition and speculative science.