Newspaper Indecencies

     One of the pleasant things among others in connection with the operation and recovery of the King of England is the fact that the daily press did not give—because the doctors did not give—the color of his stools and urine and spittle, and other nauseating details. That was one of the justifiable criticisms of the Englishers upon the American physicians and press in dealing with the case of our late and lamented President McKinley. The case of King Edward was handled with the utmost caution and circumspection—not only in the sick chamber, but as well in the bulletins and daily press. We honor our English brethren for this regard for decency. It was disgusting in the extreme during last year, to find our breakfast table decorated with a minute report of those things in the case of the President which should never have been permitted to issue from that chamber of agony. It has also amused us a good deal to read among the American newspaper articles, concerning the [247][248] treatment of the King, that he would certainly get well, because, forsooth, his chief surgeon or medical director was so ineffably neat and clean that he has been known to change his shirt as often as six times in one day. And still a further cause for gratification lies in the fact that those wonderful fellows, the newspaper doctors of New York, were all wrong in their prognostications, for the King has negatived their diagnosis and prognosis at every point. And their columns of description detailing why the King could not get well, because the English doctors are not so well posted on appendicitis as we are, and hence, their proper and logical duty was to have cabled at once for two or three of our New York specialists—and, in especial, that group of successful newspaper specialists who attended McKinley! Then there would have been a long postponement of the coronation services. All hail, King Edward! May you live long and prosper! We are not of your stock or your nation, but we admire a good man and wish him well!