such cases, their opposition to a written code of manners is
rather an affair of theory than of practice, and it seems rather
absurd that they should so emphatically denounce the system which
they themselves, by example rather than precept, thoroughly carry
out. They would be probably as averse to committing any act of
rudeness, or any breach of politeness as the warmest admirer of
the primitive life of the Indian would be to living himself in a
dirty tent, and eating his food, half cooked, on a forked-stick
over a camp fire. For such people this little code of the "Laws
and By-Laws of American Society" is not written.

There are others who are equally fierce in their denunciations of
the ridiculous etiquette above mentioned, but who have not the
same natural excuse for being so. These are the rude, rough
natures, whom no amount of social rubbing, or intercourse with the
most refined would polish, though the professors of the art of
good breeding polished never so wisely. They act in their rules of
conduct on a principle wholly selfish, making their own ease and
comfort the first, if not indeed the sole aim, regardless entirely
of the amount of inconvenience or discomfort they may occasion to
others. They are obliged to cry down, for mere consistency's sake,
the system which condemns their own course of action, and which
gives certain laws for governing the conduct, and certain other
laws prohibiting many of the acts of rudeness which they find so
agreeable, but which others may reasonably object to as offensive.
Such persons, too, will of course freely express their opinion,
yet their denunciations will probably produce an exactly opposite
effect to the one they intend, their own conduct proving the
pernicious influence of their theory. Their abuse will be, not the
expression, half in badinage, of minds protesting by anticipation