Sample Minnesota's rich history, courtesy of a microfilm archive of newspaper articles, photos and ads dating back more than 140 years. Fresh items are posted once or twice a week. Go here for tips on how to track down old newspaper articles on your own. Or visit the Yesterday's News archives, a searchable library of more than 300 articles.

Follow the blog on Twitter.

NEW: "Minnesota Mayhem," a book based on the blog, is a collection of stories about disasters, accidents, crimes and bad behavior.

E-mail Ben with your questions or suggestions.

July 22, 1914: Police chief in pajamas chases thief

Posted by: Ben Welter under Minnesota History, Religion Updated: February 13, 2013 - 7:02 PM
  • share

    email

 
From the Minneapolis Tribune:
 

Police Chief in Pajamas
Chases Thief on Streets

 
Detective Ohman in Union Suit Joins in Pursuit – Neighbors Are Startled.
 
Shots, Confusion, Police Called, Then All Fade Back to Bed.
 
Chief of Police Martinson in pajamas, Detective Ohman in a union suit and both in a revolver battle at 2 a.m. yesterday with a resident who thought them burglars, stirred the sleepy citizens of the district around Blaisdell avenue and Thirty-seventh street into waking consciousness. A score of revolver shots reverberated through the night air, the chief and his detective missed the burglar and nearly caught a cold and the excited resident who was sending the bullets in the direction of the supposed burglars ducked into his home when he discovered his mistake.
 
Shot Heard Around the Block.
 
It all happened this way. At 2 a.m. Mrs. David Humphrey, 3624 Blaisdell avenue, heard a noise on the back porch and woke up. She saw a man crouching on the porch under the window. She awakened her husband and he got his revolver. He fired at the prowler, who slid down a tree near the porch. This was the shot heard around the block.
 
Chief Martinson lives just around the corner at 126 East [West, actually] Thirty-seventh street. He sleeps on the porch. The chief heard the shot and made a dash for what he thought was the source of the shot, with nothing but a suit of pajamas, slippers and his revolver. Detective Ohman’s house backs on the chief’s yard. Detective Ohman got to the street just 36 seconds after David Humphrey took a shot at the prowler. Then Citizen No. 2, name unknown, appeared on the scene. He had heard the shot and did the same as the chief and detective, got his revolver – also his trousers.
 
Chief Takes No Chances.
 
The citizen saw Chief Martinson and Detective Ohman in fast progress down the avenue and opened fire. The chief sized up the situation and stopped. By this time the whole neighborhood was aroused and dozens of frantic telephone calls sent riot messages to Central station. Whereat, Captain Merrick and an auto load of detectives hurried to the scene, just in time to see the chief shyly withdrawing to his screened boudoir, while a half dozen residents, a la Vera Cruz snipers, had their heads out the second story windows with firearms drawn for action.
 
A rebuilt but still grimy-looking motorcar carried traffic on Blaisdell Avenue at 35th Street in about 1904. (Photo courtesy mnhs.org)

Aug. 17, 1922: The Court of Cupid

Posted by: Ben Welter under Minnesota History Updated: February 4, 2013 - 11:03 AM
  • share

    email

 

I should really save this piece for Valentine’s Day. But I’ll be speaking to a group of 50-plus singles at St. Joan of Arc next week and I need fresh material.
 
From the Minneapolis Tribune:
 

Court of Cupid Takes Up Task of
Finding Mates for 2,000 Lovelorn

 
Jury and Judge to Decide Case of Lovers’ Co-operative Union.
 
Hammonton, N.J., Aug. 16. – (Universal News Service.) – Hearts of bootleggers, financiers, merchants, peddlers, rich men poor men, beggar men, chiefs, doctors, lawyers, zoo-keepers, machinists, cowboys on the one hand.
 
 
  A match made near Echo, Minn.: Some men put their wives on a pedestal. Olai Homme put his beloved, Josephine, on a wheelbarrow for this photo by Ole Mattiason Aarseth, taken in about 1915. (Courtesy mnhs.org)
Flappers, farmerettes, widows, orphans, milliners club women, actresses, waitresses, Portias, models, artists, a snake charmer, beauty parlor owners and even a wife or two on the other.
 
They’re some of the subjects the newly appointed court of Cupid dealt with today, when the first cases of the Lovers’ Co-operative union were called.
 
It is up to a jury of 12 and Mrs. Helen Long Rodgers, judge, to make 2,000 lonely hearts beat as 1,000.
 
Judge and Jury Decides.
 
Thomas D. Dekler, secretary of the union, and Lewis Conley, president, pulled the first names form the many applicants for husbands and wives. It is up to the judge and jury to decide, for instance, whether or not a chorus girl would make a good wife for a peddler, or a banker a good husband for a flapper.
 
As soon as decisions are reached regarding a couple, both parties are communicated with. Mail order courtships are then the program for six months, and if marriage does not follow by that time the prospective bride or bridegroom is given another draw.
 
One woman from Missouri said she objected to the use of the word “mate.”
 
“It sounds too much like a bird,” she said. “My first husband was a bird. No more experiments in [ornithology for] me.”
 
Bootlegger Wants Finances.
 
Mrs. Rodgers interrupted at this point and said that the heartitorium idea was no joking matter, impressing on the jury that it should give the most serious consideration to the case of each applicant. Here are some of the requests in the questionnaires, the names being withheld to spare the embarrassment of those concerned:
 
A St. Louis bootlegger wants a wife “about 40” to finance his business.
 
A San Francisco broker wants a wife, preferably pretty with “convivial relations but one who will confine her conviviality to me.”
 
An actress wants a tired of retired business man as a husband.
 
A department store buyer wants a widower earning $15,000 a year. She is 42, but “I don’t look it.”
 
A rubber worker with six children wants any woman who will be kind to them.
 
Girl Wants Cave Man.
 
A school girl wants a cave man “who will rough me when I deserve it.”
 
A wife contemplating divorce wants a man who can afford to smoke 50-cent cigars.
 
A newspaper man wants “a girl who will be quiet and let me write. She must type my manuscripts and not be angry when they come back.”
 
But the purchasing agent of a large hardware firm wins the handsome silk-lined jigsaw. He writes:
 
“I want a wife who will let me keep my first wife’s picture on the dresser, and who will let me correspond with my second wife, from whom I was divorced. She must be poor, so she can appreciate what I can give her.”
 
It is said Cupid’s court will be in session six months.

 

Epilogue: The court was in session exactly one day, wilting under newspaper coverage belittling the concept. The total number of successful matches: zero. The chief justice, Mrs. Rodgers, resigned, as did the jury. “I just went into it as a joke,” said one juror, Mrs. Clyde Smith. “The Lovers’ Co-operative Union” turned out to be the brainchild of a newspaperman, Thomas Delker, editor of the South Jersey Star, who is identified as “Dekler” in the story above. In spite of the negative publicity, he vowed that the good work would go on: “Why, men, think! Think of all the sorrow, desolation and suffering to thousands of lonely hearts which would ensue if this whole thing were called off!” Henry J. Culshaw, unmoved, decided the Lovers’ Co-operative Union could no longer use his Palace Motion Picture Theater, and that was the end of it.

Jan. 21, 1917: How long does it take your wife to dress?

Posted by: Ben Welter under Minnesota History Updated: February 9, 2013 - 3:19 PM
  • share

    email

 
Christine Frederick was a distinguished home economist of the early 1900s. A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Northwestern University, she founded a laboratory that analyzed many of the products and processes used in American homes. Her goal was to identify and promote more efficient ways of keeping house. She was the driving force, for example, behind the standardization of kitchen counter heights. She served as a consulting editor of a number of publications, wrote several books and penned a series of articles on "The New Housekeeping" for the Ladies' Home Journal. This piece, originally written for the American Weekly, a  Sunday newspaper supplement, appeared in the Minneapolis Tribune.
 

 

Mrs. Christine Frederick, Efficiency Expert, Holds the Stop Watch on Women to Find Out Just How Much Time They Can Save in Lacing Their Corsets, Buttoning Their Shoes and Hooking Up Their Gowns.

 
 
  Christine Frederick
By Mrs. Christine Frederick
Household Efficiency Expert, Author of “The New Housekeeping,” Etc.
 
The hoary joke of the cartoonists on the number of hours a woman keeps a man waiting while she dresses to go out with him was flattened by the recent announcement of a prominent woman that she could dress in exactly fifteen minutes. But instantly this claim to feminine speed championship was disputed by other claimants, who respectively announced thirteen, ten and even two minutes as the time limit required to clothe themselves.
 
In view of all this discussion it is worth while putting the stopwatch on the subject and settling by seconds “how long does it take a woman to dress?”
 
Are you fat, or are you lean? Are you orderly, or the reverse? What kind of clothes do you wear? All these factors greatly influence the time required to dress.
 
Here, for instance, is a time study I made of a young girl as she dressed completely for the street:
 
Dressing Time Study No. 1
(Thin Model) in Afternoon Street Attire.
(Subject ready in bathrobe and slippers – all garments needed arranged conveniently near dresser.)
 
 
Min.
Sec.
Cold cream and powder face ……………..
1
20
Put on union suit ……………………………
 
15
Put on shoes and stockings
(17-hole lace shoes) ………………………..
 
3
 
Corset (“sport” type) ………………………..
 
15
Camisole …………………………………….
 
35
Silk petticoat …………………………………
 
5
Arrange hair .………………………………...
2
15
Put on one-piece dress …………………….
1
 
Hat ……………………………………………
 
10
Coat …………………………………………..
 
25
Gloves ………………………………………..
 
20
Total time …..……………………………….
9
40
 
Another girl of the same age and type was ready for the street in 13 minutes, 40 seconds, the additional four minutes being the time consumed by her bath.
It will be noticed here that the lacing of the shoes and the arranging of the hair took the longest time. Contrast these figures with this second time study, in which the subject was a more mature woman:
 
Dressing Time Study No. 2
(Mature Model). Afternoon 3-Piece Costume. (Subject was before in bathrobe and slippers.)
 
 
Min.
Sec.
Get into union suit …………………………..
 
10
Put on stockings .……………………………
 
20
Shoes (15-button boot) ...…………………..
1
10
Corset (20-hook front lace model) .……….
1
10
Camisole …………………………………….
 
25
Bloomers ….…………………………………
 
20
Hair arranged ..……………………………...
3
50
Skirt …………………….…………………….
 
30
Waist …………………………………………
 
50
Hat ……………………………………………
 
15
Coat …………………………………………..
 
30
Gloves ………………………………………..
 
30
Total time ……………………………..…….
10
 
 
Comparing these figures, it will be found that the corset of the stouter woman is her bête noir in dressing. In the first case the young woman with the girlish waist, wearing a short six-hook “sport” corset, was able to put it on in fifteen seconds. It took the more mature woman, with the fuller curves and the twenty-hook front lace, one minute and ten seconds to do the same trick.
 
For some women, squeezing into a corset took more than one pair of hands. (Photo courtesy mnhs.org)
 
From three to five minutes is usually required for even a simple day coiffure, and this means that the possessor of the locks has practiced the same style until she almost unconsciously finds her hands taking the right motions – for she who hesitates is indeed lost, and a slight wrong start in hair dressing never seems to come right.
 
The fact was clearly brought out that in order to dress quickly clothes and accessories must be well arranged, and in definite places so as to prevent all “fumbling.” Hunting uselessly for the right pair of gloves, or finding buttons loose, or that a new collar needed suddenly to be sewn on, are all details unpardonable if quick time is desired. Of course, in this connection, the services of a maid would be a help; but the woman who is her own valet can be just as well dressed and in as rapid time if she has a place for everything and everything in its place.
 
It is almost startling to note the change that has come about in the kind of fastenings used by well-dressed women to-day, as compared to those of a decade ago. For instance, the newest union suit, or chemise of the moment, boasts not a single button; the clumsy drawstring is now a thing of the past, and is replaced by a neater, more efficient band of elastic which “gives” with every movement of the figure. Even the popular buttonless camisole is fast replacing the starched “corset covers” and brassieres with many hooks.
 
From the tests I made, it was clearly proved that the kind and number of fastenings has a great deal to do with the rapidity possible in dressing. Just for the whim of it, did you ever know that:
 
 
  A 1918 ad in the Minneapolis Tribune showed what women were up against in the shoe department: A pair of these boots -- available for just $4.45 at the Leader, "the Great Economy Store" at Third and Nicollet -- featured more than five dozen eyelets.
Shoes have from 10 to 25 buttons or eyelets.
 
Corsets have from 6 to 20 fastenings or eyelets.
 
Gloves from 1 to 20 buttons.
 
Union suits, underwear, 1 to 12 buttons.
 
Camisoles or Brassieres, 1 to 20 buttons or hooks.
 
Bloomers, only elastic.
 
Skirts (outer), 1 to 12 hooks or snaps.
 
Waists, generally 6 to 18.
 
One-piece dresses, 6 to 12.
 
Evening dresses, 12 to 24 snaps and eyes.
 
Petticoats, 1 to 4 snaps or a string or elastic.
 
Naturally, the fewer the fastenings, and the easier they are to adjust, the quicker the time that can be made. In the above tests the most modern and approved garments were used – bloomers, camisoles and underwear all having only elastic fastenings. The one-piece dress takes about half the time of a separate skirt and waist.
 
Evening dresses, oddly, were not as complicated as most fussy “afternoon” frocks which have underseam fastenings and hidden hooks and eyes generally in more difficult places. The evening dresses, made by good modistes, while with many clasps, were so modeled that they were easy to slip on and fasten securely.
 
In passing it should be said that the fewer buttons and strings the better dressed the more safely dressed the modern woman will be. Why stick to a stiffly starched corset cover when a silk camisole will answer every purpose and have no buttons to come off in the wash or hooks to be flattened by the iron? Why trust to tapes and knotty strings when elastic is so much better?
 
The third study, which follows, was made on a mature woman, who dressed in an elaborate jet and satin evening gown in exactly 26 minutes and 30 seconds.
 
 
Min.
Sec.
Laying out clothes …………………………..
2
 
Bath .…………………………………………
4
 
Face and neck creamed and powdered ….
2
 
Put on union suit …………………...……….
 
10
Stockings and pumps ………………………
 
40
Corsets ….…………………………………..
3
 
Silk bloomers ..……………………………...
 
20
Silk camisole hooking in back .…………….
5
 
Hair .……………………………………………
5
 
Evening gown ………………………………
2
40
Jewels and ornaments ……………………..
 
10
Finishing touches to the arms, etc. ...……..
 
20
Long gloves ………………………………….
 
30
Cloak and scarf ……………………………..
 
40
Total time …………………………………….
26
30
 
This was a most elaborate toilet, elegant in every accessory – one suitable for the opera and dance. It included every detail, even jewels and bath. The subject did not hurry, but took her own time, except that she concentrated her thoughts on dressing and nothing else. This toilet, if repeated at more frequent intervals, could certainly be done in 20 minutes, and without complete bath could have been finished in 15 minutes.
 
To the figures given above should also be added the time required to undress in order to get into the costume, and the time required to arrange or lay out the garments and put the other clothing away. We can average the time to lay out a complete set of apparel as 2 minutes; the time to lay the present clothing away about 1½ minutes; average bathing time 5 minutes. And the average dressing time (exclusive of bath) for the street, 10 minutes, for the afternoon function, 15 minutes; for the theatre or dance, 20 minutes. From all these figures there would seem to be no excuse in the world why any woman, at any time, in any costume, should take more than one-half hour to dress from the “skin out.”
 
If a motion chart were prepared of the movements women make in dressing, it would appear like the path of an equatorial storm, of circles within circles and concentric dotted lines. Very roughly, indeed, we can say that to dress according to Study 2 required the following convolutions, even under the most efficient plan, with everything laid on one chair.
 
 
Motions.
Get into union suit ....…….
    4
Each stocking ……………
    2
Each shoe ………………..
 40
Corset …………………….
 24
Camisole …………………
    6
Bloomers …………………
    8
Hair ……………………….
 60
Skirt ……………………….
 10
Waist ………………………
 30
Hat …………………………
 20
Coat ……………………….
 10
Gloves …………………….
 30
Total ……………………….
244
                          
Here are the seven rules which the woman who wants to be efficient in her dressing should be careful to observe:
 
1. Select or have your clothes made with the fewest buttons, hooks and fastenings.
2. See that clothes are constantly in readiness, with no loose buttons or need of adjustment.
3. Arrange them in definite places, easily accessible.
4. Before you begin to dress, plan and arrange every detail of the toilet as compactly as possible.
5. When you dress, “dress” with your mind concentrated on this subject.
6. Work out what seems the best, least awkward order for your particular needs.
7. Practice dressing daily.
 
The sixth of these rules is of the greatest importance.
 
Which is the quickest and least awkward, to sit down on the floor when putting on shoes, or to stand and place the foot on a chair? Do you put on first one stocking and then one shoe, or first both stockings and then both shoes? Do you put on your corset before the shoes, or vice versa? Whatever you decide, do it that way always, so that deftness results.
 
Efficiency in dressing is demanded of women, just as efficiency is required in other needs and work. And efficiency does not mean “slammed together” dressing, but that which proceeds from the right clothes, conveniently arranged, and concentration during the dressing process. There is no need for the woman in ordinary life to rival the speed of the actress, but that she should be able to dress well, and yet quickly, will enable her to have more time for outside pursuits and work more valuable to herself, her home and society.
 
This helpful illustration accompanied "How long does it take your wife to dress?" Nearly a century later, the bath time looks suspect. Have you ever gotten in and out of the tub in four minutes or less?

 

Dec. 27, 1893: Down in Fish Alley

Posted by: Ben Welter under Minnesota History, Crime, City streets Updated: January 28, 2013 - 1:34 PM
  • share

    email

 
Known as the “slum of all slums” in the city’s early days, Fish Alley was a crime-ridden warren of decrepit structures and narrow paths on the northeastern edge of downtown Minneapolis. The block was bounded by Washington Avenue, S. Third Street and what are now known as Park and Portland Avenues S. The crumbling “fish building” for which it was named was condemned as unsafe on May 2, 1906, and ground was broken for the J.I. Case warehouse a few weeks later. The Case building, about a block from the Metrodome, is now home to an Old Spaghetti Factory restaurant and other businesses.

Brace yourself, dear reader. The Tribune reporter did not paint a pretty picture of this blot on the city’s escutcheon.
 

DOWN IN FISH ALLEY

 
ONE OF THE VERY FEW BLOTS ON THE CITY’S ESCUTCHEON.
 
Visit to a Place Which Frequently Figures in Police Annals – The Alley Is Not What It Used to be However, and Its Prestige as a Center of Criminality Is Gradually Being Lost – Sights and Scenes in Its Dark Recesses Which the General Public Little Dream of – The Day in Police Circles.
 
“Fish alley.”
 
Little that is pleasant can be said about it. Even the light of the universal festival just celebrated cannot penetrate those dingy rookeries to throw even a semblance of cheerfulness upon them. The usual pastime and even occupation of the inmates are cards and whisky, and petty crimes, and Christmas is usually celebrated by having a little more of these.
 
The place frequently figures in the annals of the police, and hardly ever comes to the surface in any other connection. Time was when crime of a more or less desperate nature was enacted in the place, or elsewhere by its boldest inmates, but whatever of the criminal element now found there is of the cheap, timid sort, and the people are utterly without stamina of any kind. Formerly the place swarmed with negroes, Chinese and low-down white trash, but the alley is now largely deserted. A few families are found there, but most of the population is composed of roomers, devotees of vice in various forms. The latest exploit was the enticing of a farmer into one of the upper rooms by a street siren whose alleged husband at the proper moment came rushing upon the scene. Hush money was of course demanded, and would no doubt have been paid had not Officer Conroy, on whose beat Fish alley is located, appeared to prevent the consummation of the crime. The woman was sent to the work house. Conroy has made it rather unpleasant for the criminal gentry, and more than 20 inmates have moved away since he began his duties there.
 
NAMED FOR EARLY TIMES.
 
The place has its name from the fact that in early times a fish market was located there. The original building is still standing, a low, narrow structure, in the middle of the block between Seventh and Eighth avenues south. A narrow space separates it from the next building on the right, an alley just wide enough to permit a person to walk through to the rear. Here a concatenation of half-rotten stairs, galleries and doors lead to the rooms on the right and left and to the first and upper floors. Everything is in a condition of decay, corresponding well with the unwholesome moral and mental attributes of the denizens of the place. Many of the ground floor rooms fronting on Washington avenue are used for various sorts of business, meat markets, saloons, candy stores, second hand dealers, etc., and outward appearances are not so bad. But in the rear corruption and decay have full sway. The houses run into the ground here, and what is the second or third story in the front may be the first from the rear. The place swarms with rats. Dogs bark and growl as one threads his way carefully through the labyrinths, and the wails of children, or the carousal of debauchees fret the midnight air. Formerly it would have been a dangerous undertaking to go through the rookeries alone, but the danger is not great now. The surveillance of the police over the locality is so close that criminals find it but an insecure hiding place.
 
In its palmy days Fish alley was a city refuge for the criminal fleeing from justice. Negroes were then swarming in the block, and the razor artist who had carved a fellow citizen uptown would flee to the rookery and, sheltered by his friends, it was a difficult task to ferret him out.
 
 

Detail of C. Wright Davison's 1884 Pocket Map of Minneapolis shows the location of Fish Alley: Block 45, just south of the Chicago Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway's "Car House."

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT