The people of England, who own the Telegraph, each end being limited to British soil, and the whole line under control of British capitalists, seem to have rejoiced over the success of the great event of the age in a most rational and sensible manner, while we have apparently gone mad with joy over an affair which, in nowise, can be construed into a national subject. Degrading as it may be to our personal pride, Peter Cooper, the Field family, and Archbishop John, to the contrary notwithstanding, the Atlantic Telegraph is essentially an English triumph; and in expending a large sum of money in an ebullition of passing insanity, our citizens have only rendered themselves subjects for merriment. Who will deny that, although the project of an Atlantic Telegraph was first broached on this side of the Atlantic, almost the entire credit of its success has been committed to British hands. The money was raised in England, and three out of four vessels, engaged in the enterprize, bore the British flag. And now have we any just excuse to run mad with joy, and to add some fifty thousand additional taxes to our already over-taxed community?
The very character of the procession which went through our streets was a polite satire upon the occasion, as it can mainly be regarded as an illegal method of advertising one’s wares, which, if persisted in, would prove ruinous to the Sunday papers. We had cracker bakers, alcohol dealers, gas stoves, and all that sort of thing, from the beginning to the end of the chapter; and one, unacquainted with the nature of municipal rejoicing, would conceive the demonstration to have been the American Institute house-moving on the first of May. And now that the reign of folly has past, and the festivity of the occasion wasted into air, a second, sober thought suggests to us that we have been manufacturing a very large quantity of excitement upon a very small capital; and the more serious this consideration will become as the moment of payment presses on us. We have no right to squander public moneys, no more than that of embezzling from private persons; still we are well aware that a different standard of morality governs the actions of officials from those of the same beings in a mercantile character. Now that we have reached the tail of the cable excitement, let us propound a simple query: What have we gained by all this frenzy beyond the glorification of one or two individuals, who have suddenly discovered themselves to be great? We have foolishly spent a large sum of money—we have made an exhibition of ourselves, and have no equivalent to show in exchange for our funds and our honor. By the tail of the cable hangs a curious tale indeed.
Too True by Half.—One of our City Fathers, upon being solicited for a ticket to the Cable Dinner on the 2d of September, refused, giving as a reason that he could not venture to invite any of his friends, from fear of introducing improper characters.
The Paupers at the Town Table.
If any man hangs around a public house, dependent upon the charity of visitors for a drink, even if it be absolutely necessary to his health, he is commonly honored with the epithet of a “bummer;” but when a highly distinguished politician or other man, too indolent to do his own work and subsisting from the public till, hangs around the City Hall, awaiting the chances at the public table, we fail to recognize the similarity of his condition with the dry and athirst of the common tap-room. Now we are blind enough not to see the distinction between these two classes of worthies, and we are stupid enough to enumerate both as under the same category. It matters little to us whether the guzzler at the Metropolitan feeds at the public expense, or Brown at the Pewter Mug drinks from the involuntary contributions of Jones or any other private individual. In both instances the principle is the same, and a man who dines at the public expense, even if it be in the name of Cyrus W. Field, is as much of a sucker as the lounger who insists upon participating with you in a smile. They are both paupers, and should be deservedly esteemed as such by an intelligent community. There is nothing like calling things by their proper names, although they may be distasteful to our so-called Reformers.
It is exceedingly strange that any body of men, pretending to advocate retrenchment in our finances, will so barefacedly and undisguisedly seize upon a large sum of money belonging, as they honorably admit, to a most over-taxed municipality, and squander it for the least profitable of animal passions. Three thousand dollars could be better expended in a monument or other testimonial of our Cable joy, than to be guzzled down by a bevy of hungry hounds, who would have claimed boon-companionship with Judas Iscariot to get an invitation to the Last Supper. If it be necessary to express our joy, why not do it in a rational manner, like men gifted with reason, and not guzzle and swill like beasts of the field? Still the invincible selfishness of our Aldermen demanded an Aldermanic banquet, whence a majority of our officials will in all probability be carried home on a shutter, if they do not succeed in procuring accommodations at the public expense in the Fifteenth Ward Station. Where better to end the bacchanalian revel? We had believed that, when the iniquity of the tea-room was suppressed, and the bevy of loafers who were wont to breakfast, dine and sup from the free lunch of our Municipal tea-room, the whole fabrick of guzzling would be cast down, so that every intelligent and reputable man would conceive it a species of larceny to dine at the expense of the poverty-stricken tax-payers. But that which is bred in the bone cannot come out from the skin, and this habit of dining is too deeply seated to be eradicated from these veterans at the public table. It would be a curious study for a statician to compute the amount of groceries, wet and dry, consumed by some of these well fed officials, and, when published, would afford a very instructive lesson in municipal economy. We will venture to say that Simeon Draper alone, in the course of his public services, has deemed it a part of his duty to consume edibles and drinkables to the extent at least of three thousand dollars. Here, then, is a question for disputation at the Institute that, if the official keep of one man costs such a sum, how much would it cost to support an army.
☞ God made man, and he rested; then he made woman and rested; then he invented the Beecher family and rested again, and then he created the Field family; and there, let us hope, we come to a full stop.