The background: In 1898, Randolph Guggenheimer, president of the City Council of Greater New York, instituted an ordinance that prohibited swearing in public places. Imposing a $10 fine on a person for each curse word they uttered, the law was widely mocked in the national press, and the council repealed it in less than a month.
On August 2, 1898, The Atlanta Journal published the opinions of well-known Atlantans on New York’s “anti-damn” law and whether it could be replicated in Atlanta, in an article titled ‘”Antidmamn” Law For Us?” Norrman — once a sailor, mind you — was naturally opposed.
As a representative piece of Atlanta journalism, the article repeatedly misspelled Guggenheimer’s name as “Gurgenheimer”.
Norrman’s remarks:
“Curse words I regard merely as adjectives used to express strong feeling. They simply emphasize what a man says and those toward whom they are applied always understand that what is said is meant. These adjectives are sometimes very useful in business, because some people persist in refusing to understand what you mean unless you emphasize it with them. These adjectives should be regulated arccording to the people with whom you are talking.
To illustrate: If a lady comes into the office and proves to be disagreeable, I simply excuse myself—say that I am too busy, or words to that effect: but if a book agent or lightning rod man or life insurance drummer comes in, I tell him to go to hell. I don’t believe that Mr. Gurgenheimer’s [sic] law can be enforced to advantage in New York City. My experience with New Yorkers is that you often have to emphasize your language very emphatically in talking even to them. In fact, I believe that more emphasis is needed in New York than Atlanta because it’s a larger place. Of course, I don’t think, for a moment that the ‘anti-damn’ laws could be enforced in Atlanta. Its enforcement would seriously interfere with business.
I admit that these adjectives are not elegant, but they form the most forcible way in which one can express himself.