QUAKERISM IN THE UNITED STATES.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—If the decadence of " Quakerism in the United States " has no better illustration or proof than that given by " V. R." in his letter of June 20th, there is little need of apprehension or complaint. It requires very little effort to detect to whom " V. R." refers as the Quaker hotelkeeper, for he is so precious a memory to many who watched his clean and beautiful life, and who still cherish association with him, even as paying guests at his hotel, as one of the great privileges of their life, that " V. R.'s " description easily points him out. This Quaker hotelkeeper, because he was so loyal to his principles and so indifferent to some sources of worldly gain or patronage, was the object of considerable ridicule by men who thought a hotel should be a place of licence and not liberty. But this Quaker repelled some classes of patrons by his regard for the Sabbath and his limitations of amusement and recreation to that which was healthful and pure. Astonish- ing as it may be to some—and an easy refutation of " V. R's" statement—the entire five months of the summer and fall, during which his hotel was open, brought so many guests that business was never bad, and his hotel was the envy of many of the finest summer resorts of the land on this account. Furthermore, he never advertised in newspapers or periodicals. Does this create the impression of a man who in other months than July and August would violate an ethical principle ? I feel sure also that "V. R.'s" quotation that this Quaker once replied that his business and his personal interests were not related cannot be Terified. It is similar to other sneers made upon his religious character, which those who knew him best regarded as unfounded. Yet, while I assert that this Quaker hotelkeeper never in his " bad" months accepted guests prohibited in the best, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that he did generally discriminate against Jews. Not always, for at times, after careful inquiry, he did welcome a few. But, as he told me himself, he had such an experience along this line as to make him exceedingly careful, and since his hotel was based upon lines quite out of that of the ordinary hostelry, away from the lines of general travel, so that no hardship was entailed by his refusal, he wisely regarded it as best to decline the applications of those who by religion, training, and custom were out of harmony with the great number who found in his hotel and its so- called limitations such a delight and benefit and charm that they returned to it annually as their summer home. Suffice it to say that this Quaker, who has now passed into the life to come, carried out a great moral experiment in hotel-keeping, never yielding one of his principles, though failure was pre- dicted, and resolutely declining some of the things regarded as necessary to a hotel, because of his religious convictions. In no way did he "exemplify the decadence of Quakerism or the incompatibility of freedom and democracy." In bearing this testimony it is but proper I should state that I am not a Quaker, but a Presbyterian.—I am, Sir, &c., [If our correspondent has drawn a true picture, his friend was evidently not the kind of Quaker who would denounce betting and all forms of gambling, but allow purveyors of racing " tips " to open an office in his hotel and share the profits with them. That is something to be thankful for, and may to some extent excuse his anti-Semitistn.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
