the city are pointedly ignored by the press. Whether or not the paper
edited by the fearless Mr. Grace ignores these manifestations I am
unable to say. One can easily fancy his taking a courageous stand on
such a subject as well as upon social matters. Indeed, with a few slight
changes, his editorial upon the St. Cecilia ball, might be made to serve
equally well after an earthquake shock. He might say:

The press being forbidden to cover earthquakes, there grew up in
the vulgar mind weird stories of what went on behind the scenes.
While the earthquakes have enjoyed the happy privilege of
journalistic silence, they have, therefore, correspondingly
suffered on the tongue of gossip.

He could also make the point that since, "in keeping with the spirit of
the age," the earthquake shakes people "(if indeed only a few of them
now and then), whose blood is far from indigo, we think it perfectly
legitimate for the newspaper, which represents ALL classes of people, to
invade the quondam sanctity of its functions which are now being OPENED
to all classes."

But of course, where the editor of such a paper is concerned, there is
always the element of natural delicacy and nicety of feeling to be
considered. Mr. Grace felt that because he was not present at the St.
Cecilia ball, he was free to print things about it. An earthquake would
not be like the St. Cecilia Society--it would not draw the line at Mr.
Grace. At a Charleston earthquake he would undoubtedly be present. The
question therefore arises: Having been PRESENT, might his AMOUR PROPRE
make him feel that to REPORT the event would not be altogether in GOOD
TASTE?