The Housekeeper's Responsibility

THE average domestic employee in American homes to-day is, I think, the most discontented wage-earner in the world. She may be said to be a product of the times and general labor conditions on the one hand, and of inefficient, inconsiderate, and indifferent employers on the other.

She is a product of the times to this extent. The semi-feudal relation that may be said to have existed between mistress and maid is becoming, happily, a thing of the past, and the prevalence of the democratic spirit has made the domestic employee realize that she has an individuality, quite as much as her employer. This causes a feeling of independence on her part, a readiness to assert, her opinion, a disposition to resent rebuke, and an impatience of direction when it conflicts with her own ideas.

I do not share the opinion which a gentleman expressed to me recently, that “ one of the best assets of a domestic employee is an exaggerated humility, a pronounced subservience,” but I do realize that this spirit of independence is often carried too far. It should have a solid groundwork of capability and efficiency, in order to flourish properly.

The domestic employee is a product of general labor conditions, in so far as she is willing to grasp the advantages which may accrue from short hours, high wages, and improved standards of life; but she has not yet understood the business principles upon which these demands should be based. The operation of these principles in domestic service is one of the main reasons why this question is rightly regarded as part of the whole labor problem.

In other departments of labor workmen of certain grades are engaged to do certain things, and paid accordingly. If a man engages a stenographer, he does not expect her to carry in coal; if an intelligence-office keeper has an assistant manager, she does not require her to build the fires and sweep the halls. Yet only yesterday I overheard a lady engaging a maid to serve as cook and laundress. She engaged her as a general houseworker, on the plea that when the girl got there and found the place was easier than general housework, she would stay. I wondered if, later on, when the cooking did not suit, the employer would remember that she had not engaged a cook.

In another place a girl was hired as nurse, and then was set to work cleaning the house from top to bottom, on the plea that the baby was good, and she might as well be busy. Why ? Because a nurse receives smaller wages than a charwoman. I might multiply instances. I believe firmly in doing the thing that lies next to one, and doing it well; but I do not believe in hiring a domestic employee in one capacity, and then complaining because she is not proficient in a dozen others.

There are standards of excellence in professions, or proficiency in crafts, to which those practicing them must attain; their ability to do required work is thus tested, and as far as possible it is known to what extent and for what duties the worker is qualified. Are there any general recognized standards in domestic service ? If so, where are they ?

In 1895, the Committee of Economics of the Philadelphia Civic Club published a set of requirements for a cook, a waitress, a laundress, and a chambermaid, and sent it to the members of the club with the request that the ladies should endeavor to put them in practice, if possible. The standards were fair, the requirements sensible, the wages adequate. Some years after, I wrote to the president of the club, asking how the scheme had worked out. She replied that “ only ten per cent of the club members replied to the circular or took any interest in it.”

That is one trouble. Each one is a law unto herself; not only each maid, but each mistress, for it works both ways. I was sitting in an intelligence office when I heard a girl ask for a position as chambermaid. There was none to be had, but the office keeper offered her a position as waitress. “I guess I can take it, it’s easy picked up,” said the girl. Anything that is “easy picked up” is counted as of little value, and no worker will be respected, or respectful, unless she respects her work. She may “pick it up” sufficiently to suit Mrs. A, but Mrs. B, Mrs. C, and Mrs. D may require more, while Mrs. X may require less. An “experienced salesman” means an experienced salesman, judged by known commercial standards, but “an experienced waitress ” may or may not be such. A firstrate conjpositor understands the correct use of capitals, spelling, and punctuation, but a “first-rate cook” may be only second, third, or even fourth rate. I learned this truth through bitter experience.

In starting upon my investigations I began in the capacity of general houseworker, and received the following recommendations : —

“Jane —— having been in my employ for a few weeks, and having proven herself capable, obliging, and considerate, I am pleased to recommend her as a good cook, and faithful in all things.”

“I take pleasure in recommending Jane —— as a good housekeeper, economical, careful, tidy, and ever ready and willing to do her best, which is good.”

I was pleased with these testimonials, for I had begged the writers not to say anything but what they felt to be the truth. Consequently, on going to another city, I acted on the advice of my fellow employees, and applied for work as “a good plain cook.” I was not, as may be seen, exactly a greenhorn; nevertheless, I came to grief through this lack of standards. Just because I was “capable,” I might see things more readily, might make my head serve my hands, might the sooner become efficient; but I was not capable enough. I needed more of a foundation. One lady said to me, “You are above the average, and will make a very good servant, but you have much to learn.”

However, backed by my references, I took a place as cook, with the understanding that I was to be given a two weeks’ trial, and if at the end of that time I was not satisfactory to my employer, nor she to me, we would part amicably. We parted amicably, at the expiration of ten days, simply because our standards of “good plain cooking ” differed widely.

It may be interesting to know in what I failed. I have taken three consecutive menus, from Saturday evening till Sunday afternoon, to serve as an illustration.

Dinner.

Everything was “good,” yes, “satisfactory,” but the apple pie. The crust was only “fair,” and adhered more to the pan than was consistent with Miss Farmer’s principle that “ it is a poor crust that cannot, grease its own pan.”

Breakfast.

I do not like to think of that breakfast. In the end it really consisted of —

I burned the beans, and the toast was unsatisfactory.

Dinner.

The next morning the following dialogue took place. I give it verbatim.

“What do you think about staying with me, Jane ? ”

Jane hedged. “What do you think about it, Mrs. —— ? ”

“Well, I think your cooking lacks daintiness. Your toast yesterday morning was three quarters of an inch thick; none of us could eat it.”

“I was sorry about that toast, Mrs. ——. I forgot it, and I was in a hurry, and cut it too thick. I would have served more, but I had no more stale bread.”

“Then your rolls I did not like. They were light and delicious, but they were so big they looked as if they had been made for the kitchen.”

I said nothing.

“Then your fishballs. I couldn’t wish to have them taste better, but they were too round.”

I thought ruefully what a time I had had moulding those selfsame balls, and murmured that I was “ sorry not to have pleased” her.

But your ice cream was delicious; the sauce was good, too,” she added, seeing my crestfallen look.

Now I began to question. “Were the soups all right?”

“Very nice; you make good soups.”

“Were the meats cooked to please you?”

“Yes, you certainly cook meats well, and the Yorkshire pudding was good, but your cooking lacks the daintiness I wish.”

“Were the nuts all right?” I asked.

“Yes, they could not have been nicer.”

“Did you like the salad?”

“Very much; but this week I have had very plain cooking. I shall have a great deal more than this, however. Do you feel inclined to stay ? ”

“Frankly speaking, Mrs. ——, I do not care to stay, for I never pretended to be anything but a good plain cook.”

“Yes, but I do not think you are quite that. Then you do not care to stay?”

“I think you would be better satisfied with some one else.”

“Well, I will see, then, about getting another girl. Why do you not take chamberwork ? That does not require so much head.”

What was the trouble ? Not enough “head” ? No, I think it was difference of standards. She had hers, I had mine. I was mortified at having failed, she was discouraged because I had not come up to her expectations. It means a good deal more to be a plain cook nowadays than it used to; cooking is no exception to the rule that life has grown more complex. Look at the repertoire of the potato today. It used to be counted almost on the fingers of one hand. Boiled, baked, mashed, steamed, fried, and warmed over. Now there are potatoes creamed, hashed, scalloped, croquetted, or au gratin. Potatoes from à l’Anglaise to à la Zulu. They are served in balls or in boats, in Saratoga or Kentucky style, and a good plain cook must have these various ways at her fingers’ ends.

There is the old-fashioned hash. Would it recognize itself in all the fricandeaux, fricandelles, croquettes, boudins, and timbales, of which it is the legitimate parent ? Sauces there are “too numerous to mention.” Yorkshire pudding still holds its own; but what a progeny of “soufflés,” from potato to prune, has sprung up around it. Washington Irving’s “family of cakes ” now embraces all the connections between angel and devil. Nevertheless, there is nothing but varying individual standards to determine the repertoire of a good plain cook. It is the same in any other branch of domestic service. It is dismal work for the housekeeper, trying one girl after another to find that difference of standards renders recommendations as to ability almost valueless.

Another principle which obtains in business is simply the matter of keeping one’s word. An article is bought and ordered sent home; you expect it to be there. You may engage a maid, and there is no certainty whether she will keep her engagement or not. At first I could not understand why, when I took a place, the employer would say, “ Now you will surely come, you won’t disappoint me;” or, “Be sure and do not fail me.”

One day I asked, “Why do you act as if I would not come ? I’ll keep my word.” And the reply was, “ I have had so many disappointments.” I lived to learn that the merest whim on the part of either employer or employee is sufficient to cause both one and the other to “change her mind.”

This is not right. If a maid promises to go to an employer, and disappoints her without good and sufficient reason, the office from which she was engaged should strike her name from its books. And when an employee is engaged, after spending time, trouble, and expense to obtain a place, only to be told that the lady has “changed her mind,” it would seem to be the wisest thing for the keeper of that intelligence office to request the discontinuance of such patronage.

There are many offices which either demand no fee from the girls, or can be cajoled out of asking one by a plea of poverty. Something for nothing is neither right nor businesslike. It tends to make maids careless, and the value of the place is not appreciated. The municipal employment bureaus give good service free of charge, and if girls have no money, they are the best places at which to apply for work. It would be more businesslike, and I believe altogether more satisfactory, if upon engaging help a written contract for one week were signed by employer and employee, stating clearly under what conditions either might be released from its terms. The Women’s Educational and Industrial Union of Boston uses such a contract with marked success. The employee is engaged to come at a certain hour, to a certain place, to perform certain duties, for a certain period of time. At the end of that period, she may or may not be permanently engaged. If such an engagement should be made, the understanding should be clear and explicit as to what would be considered sufficient grounds for breaking it.

The domestic employee as she is today is in part the product of inefficient, inconsiderate, and indifferent employers. I have experienced all three, and may have a choice as to which I should prefer; but the question here is not one of personal choice, but what sort of domestic employees will these different sorts of employers produce.

Take the inefficient first, and let the girls themselves answer the question.

“ She don’t know anything about keeping house; what’s the use of trying to do it right?”

“The idea of her givin’ us orders, when I know it all, and she don’t know no more than a baby.”

“Mrs. —— thinks she can cook, but she says, ‘Ann, take a little of this, an’ a pinch of that; you know how; I want it to taste right!’ and I don’t know what she means.”

Under such employers, maids grow careless, contemptuous, and impertinent, — three very unpleasant characteristics, for which they are not wholly to blame.

Then there is the inconsiderate mistress, not unkind, perhaps, but inconsiderate through ignorance. This sort of mistress is apt to give the maid so much to do that the girl feels the work is never done, no matter how hard she works; consequently there is the temptation to dawdle, to make a little work last a long time, lest work be “made” for her. Such an employer does not realize how tired a girl can become after working fifteen hours a day. You do not “ see” the other side of anything, from hearing or reading it, with anything like the force that comes home to you through the actual doing of it. I never knew how tired girls could become, until I had lain awake nights discovering muscles in my body of whose existence I had been unconscious. I never appreciated how worried and nervous and slow a new girl can be, until I cooked my first dinner in my first place. I never realized the utter dismay of the green girl who is confronted by a bewildering array of strange utensils, until I had to make my first hard coal fire. “Slow!” Breakfast was to be at eight o’clock, and I rose at half-past five to struggle with that fire. I did n’t make it, after all. The coachman did. But there is n’t always a coachman.

Girls are not machines. They cannot keep going from dawn till dark, and always be pleasant, cheerful, and goodnatured. They cannot rise above illness or weariness, and be perpetually willing and obliging. They cannot experience disappointment and trouble, yet always wear a smiling, happy countenance.

The capable mistress is generally the most considerate, and there is no question but that she is the strongest factor in the production of whatever good service is given in the household to-day. Nevertheless, she is sometimes inconsiderate, and in this way. She can “ turn off work ” so quickly herself that she often forgets that others lack the same faculty. Girls in a new place are often slow just because they are so nervously anxious to please. A capable mistress, impatient because things are not moving so rapidly as she knows they can move, does not always give a maid the two weeks’ trial by which she could do herself justice. The capable mistress does not always realize how much more quickly a thing can be done by itself, than when taken in conjunction with a half-dozen other duties. For instance, she comes into the kitchen to make a cake. Everything is ready to her hand, and she whisks up the cake in a few minutes, telling Jane to bake it carefully. She goes upstairs and contrasts her quickness with Jane’s slowness, forgetting that she had neither placed things in readiness, nor cleared them away, nor superintended the baking.

Or she takes the broom from Jane’s hand, — “ There, I ’ll show you,” — and gives the finishing touches to the sweeping of a room. But it is what has been done before, and will be done after, that takes the time. This sort of mistress discourages a timid girl or a slow-moving one, and she becomes disheartened. She feels that she can never come up to what is required of her, and seeks an easier place, not knowing that this Spartan training would be invaluable to her.

The indifferent mistress is in some respects the most difficult of all, and for the reason that there is an utter absence of sympathy between the domestic employee and herself. Her side of the personal equation consists, in so far as her attitude toward the maid is concerned, of negative values, and the latter feels that.

“ Why should I try to please her ? she does n’t care whether I live or die.” Indifference begets indifference, — it is inevitable. The average household worker has not been trained to take such a pride in her work that the doing of it alone will satisfy her. We are all human. If a thing is done well we like to be told so, we like to know that it is appreciated. Many a time have I waited in the kitchen,eagerly watching till the waitress came out and I could ask whether my dinner had been a success. How heavy my heart has been when a dish was sent back untasted!

Now, of necessity, the service of the household employee brings her into such close personal contact with her employer that it seems to me that sympathetic interest, friendly kindliness, warm appreciation from that employer would balance, to a great degree, the loneliness, the isolation, the weariness of the employee.

The spirit of the times, the sentiment of the trades-unions, the opinion of employers, are all in the same direction,— that more education and more training is necessary. In stating this, I am only repeating what has been said many times before. But here is the point. Are domestic employees being trained ?

It is continually said that the domestic employee of the future must be educated and trained, that cooking is a scientific pursuit, that it should be dignified as a profession, that housekeeping is really one of the fine arts, that the household worker must respect her work, and other words to the same effect.

The fact of such utterances shows a healthy state of public opinion; but are these things being done ? Are the schools of domestic science and household arts training the girls we wish to have trained, the domestic employees of the future ? Are the classes in Pratt, Drexel, and kindred institutions patronized, to the degree that they should be, by domestic employees ?

Business colleges, normal schools, nurses’ training schools,are crowded, but by far the greater number of those attending schools in domestic science go there so that they may learn to teach others, or become able to superintend their practical work.

It has seemed to me from my study of this subject, that just at this point it illustrates the proverb, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” The domestic employee does not realize that she needs training. She does not comprehend that she needs more education of the right sort. In fact, she does not see things in their right proportion, any more than some of the rest of us do. Is it not a part of our problem to help her see things in their true perspective, not as we see them, not as she thinks she sees them, but as they really are ? It is very plain that simply saying, “You need training, education, you should go to school,” will not send her there. Why should it, when there are dozens of places open to her now, untrained and ignorant though she be. There is something more necessary, and that is to make her see for herself the need of such training. It is of little avail to appeal to pride of craft, for there is no standard by which excellence can be judged.

A little waitress said, “ Mrs.——taught me. She knew how things should be done.”

“ But you do not do the things here that you have been telling me of,” said I.

“ What’s the use ? Mrs. —— does n t know the difference. What’s the use of doing things when you don’t have to ? ”

“Is n’t there a right way and a wrong way?” I asked.

“Oh, it is n’t that. Some people like so much more style than others; but they don’t care much for it here.”

“I think it is not so much being stylish, as doing things a nice way, don’t you ? ”

“As long as she don’t care, what’s the difference ? ”

I have found cooks who, from heights of pecuniary prosperity, would look down upon the general houseworker, and boast of superior skill, but I have seldom heard them speak of their craft, or their profession, whichever one may call it, with pride.

How is it with the general houseworker ? She is simply, in nine cases out of ten, working at that employment until she can specialize, and obtain higher wages, and work fewer hours.

Miss Salmon,in her admirable study of Domestic Service, says: —

“The general servant, who is expected to unite in herself all the functions of all the other employees named in the list, becomes, on account of this fact, an unskilled worker, and therefore receives the lowest wage.”

She certainly receives the lowest wage; but is it fair or just ? She “ unites in herself the functions of all the other employees; ” that is true. The question is, how does she perform those functions ? It is not difficult to discover how she is expected to perform them. Read any column of advertisements for “Help Wanted.”

“Wanted, a girl for general housework; must be a good cook and competent laundress.”

“Wanted, a young girl for general housework. Good cook, washer, and ironer; must know how to wait on table.”

She must be at least “a good plain cook.” The laundry work must be well done, and many families keeping but one maid require almost as expert table service as where there is a regular waitress. For doing all these things well, she will receive less than if she confined herself to the doing of but one thing. I confess that I do not see quite why this should be. It would be fairer to give the general houseworker six, seven, or even eight dollars a week, if she perform the duties of cook, waitress, laundress, and chambermaid.

In families where two maids are kept, it is often true that the work could be easily performed by one. It would certainly be more economical in many ways.

The plea will be made that it would be impossible for employers having a limited income to pay the general houseworker such high wages.

It may be urged: —

1. That there are inexperienced workers who should not command such high wages as the expert.

2. Such an experienced worker will be able to save the difference in wages.

“Jane,” said my employer one morning, “I shall have to speak to you about the table.”

I crimsoned. “Yes, please.”

“You are setting such a good table, things are so rich, and I have so much, that I fear I shall have dyspepsia. Please do not set such a good table.”

I flushed again. “It is pleasant to hear you say that, for I have reduced your bills this month from fourteen dollars a week to eight dollars,” said I.

It is not so very strange that the domestic employee, particularly the general houseworker, should not feel the need of special training to fit her for her work. I have met many women who confessed that they could not sew, could not sing, could not take care of children, but I have yet to meet the woman who will confess that she cannot keep house. I have heard women say that it was a bore, that they did not like to do it, but that they “ could n’t ” — never. The feeling that it is a woman’s inheritance extends from mistress to maid. She “can pick it up.”

Both mistress and maid need education and training; but do they need training in the same things ? I have never thought that a woman should be able to bake bread in order to keep house well, any more than a teacher should know how to make a slate in order to teach arithmetic; but is it not necessary that she should have education in the correct values and proportions of things pertaining to the household ? Housekeeping that is truly worthy of the name makes demands upon one’s strength, one’s intellect, one’s patience, and, most of all, on the finer moral sense. I wonder if we have faced this question squarely. With the growing complexity of life, housekeeping has not remained simple, and the education which our young women have received has not always tended toward practical homemaking. Has it not been easier to fit one’s self to do men’s work than to undergo the training necessary to manage a house ? Have not women in the main been endeavoring to fit themselves for anything but housekeeping ? And housekeeping is neither easy nor simple; it demands a knowledge of chemistry, dietetics, sanitation, economics, market values, and, above all, a considerate and sympathetic spirit, tempered by common sense.

The housekeeper’s responsibility is great. It is not enough to be efficient. Something more is needed, and it is just through this “something more ” that we may hope to reach the domestic employee and make her feel the need of training.

We hear a great deal of ethics at present, and altruistic tendencies are the fashion. Sometimes I wish they were felt a little nearer home. I know a domestic employee, a Protestant, who has had but one opportunity in a year to go to church. Her employer subscribes liberally to foreign missions. I know another household where the maids habitually go out and buy meat, paying for it from their own pockets; yet the employers entertain largely. In another home, where three maids are kept, two occupy a room together, the third sleeps in the bathroom.

Do we not need a little more human interest in this domestic employee, who is a member of the household, yet not of the family, who is not houseless, but who may be homeless in your home? You and your family have interests, pleasures, pursuits in common ; what has she ? Sharing these joys gives life a keener zest; may she not be a stranger in a strange land ? You have friends, you enjoy giving and receiving hospitality, the afternoon tea, the social call, the evening party, the formal and informal dinners. Are her friends always welcome ? Does she always have a place in which to receive them ?

I have a friend who was coachman where I was cook. We were talking together one evening after the work was done. Tom looked up suddenly and said, “Do you know, I feel sorry for the poor girls sitting in the kitchens in the evenings, nothing to do, nowhere to go; if they only had a club or something once a week to take up their interest, it would be better for them. I don’t wonder many of them go wrong.”

You have your church, and that is complex too, in that it is the centre of much social life and activity, for religion has preëminently its social side.

But what church life has the average domestic ? In fact, do Protestant girls in domestic service have much opportunity to go to church ? I most certainly had not. I might almost as well have been in Guam, so far as church privileges went.

You have your clubs. The club civic, charitable, social, formed for bridge or planned for study, as the case may be. Why should n’t your maid belong to a club as well as you ? She does not want to join your club, but how about having one of her own ? I have had some very pleasant hours teaching my fellow employees to play bridge. Why not ? It amused and refreshed them, and gave them something else to think about than the regular routine. If clubs are “good for women living lonely lives in small towns,” who is so isolated as the general houseworker? If clubs are good to occupy leisure time for pleasure or profit, why could not the domestic employee be encouraged to spend her leisure moments in self-improvement, under the stimulus of occasionally meeting with others who are engaged in like pursuits ?

The trades - union has accomplished much in having obtained shorter hours, better wages, a higher standard of living. Not the least good it has done lies in the fact that it has afforded social meetingplaces for men and women. There men and women have worked out part of their problem through coming together socially.

Now cannot this problem of the training of the domestic employee be approached from the social side ? It would seem that it could, with the interest, sympathy, and coöperation of employers. We need interest in the idea of a common meeting - place for domestic employees, sympathy with their need of it, and cooperation in the matter of making it possible for them to attend meetings, classes, lectures, or “evenings at home,” “which may be planned under the auspices of such a club.

I am not suggesting a domestic employees’ club as a sole solution of the problem of domestic service, but it would be worth considering for these reasons: —

1. The domestic employee from her isolated position has little opportunity of meeting her fellow workers. There are many objections to meeting them in intelligence offices, one of the most potent being that many of the best girls do not patronize the offices. Another objection is the gossip that goes on in many of the offices. I have sat and listened to it more than once, and know its influence upon the girls. There are many intelligence offices where men and women wait in the same room. The ceremony of introduction is not needed for the freest exchange of conversation.

2. An organization which should belong to them, which they could support, for whose welfare they should be held responsible, would appeal to their pride in its maintenance, and give them a common interest.

3. It would attract the better class of domestic employees, who are experienced, who are trained, and whose influence is needed to benefit and broaden the others.

4. Those who need the training will be far more apt to seek it when seeing the difference between themselves and the trained employee, than upon being simply told that they “ should go to school ”! They are quick enough to see such differences, although they will not always admit them.

5. One of the very hardest things in the life of a domestic employee is the constant repression. The carefully modulated voice, the studied demeanor, the respectful attitude, the impassive face,— sometimes it seems that “it is almost impossible not to do something outrageous.” George Eliot says that “ there is a great deal of unmapped country within us that must be taken into account in the sudden storms of passion that sweep over us.” Do you ever wonder why the maid gets angry when you “hardly said a word to her,” and why she “flies all to pieces”? She cannot help it. She is simply tired to death of repressing her tones, her laughter, her manner, her motions. Do you, who have had generations of cultivated ancestry, associations of refined environment, years of education, never find difficulty in controlling yourself ? She needs to have some place where she can be herself, among her own friends, among her own class.

6. The idea of union is prevalent. Domestic employees, isolated though they be, are not uninformed as to what the unions have done and are doing. In talking with them I have often known them to say, “ We poor maids should form a union; ” and one evening, after five or six of us had been discussing various questions as to wages, real, nominal, and the like, Bridget said to me, “Jane, why don’t you start a union ? we would all join it.”

”I would n’t start a union to give you higher wages,” I said.

“But you’d see that we were treated right, would n’t you?” asked Bridget.

“Only just so long as you treated others right. You can’t always do as you please, you know.”

“Well, the girls are going to have their unions, as well as anybody else,” replied Bridget.

7.If they are going to have them, why not endeavor to have them of the right sort, have them start upon the best principles, have them carried on in the most helpful way, with the coöperation of employers.

A club for domestic employees, with club privileges such as other people have, where there could be some social life for them, with library, reading-room, and parlor, where classes could be held, where they would not only be welcome, but have a feeling of proprietorship, could be made possible if employers would interest themselves in it to a sufficient extent. Great interest is taken in clubs for other workers,— the factory girl, the shop girl,— and efforts have been made to broaden their lives, to elevate them, to help them to higher and better things. The domestic employee comes closer to our lives than any other worker. In fact, is she not so close that for that very reason she has been overlooked ?

I have met many employers who thoroughly appreciate this lack that exists on the social side of the life of the domestic employee, and who are asking, “Is there anything that we can do to remedy it?”

Yes, there is. Think over this plan of a club; if one be started in the right manner, give it your encouragement, and allow your domestic employees to attend its meetings. Make it possible for them to do so, interest them in it. Recently a clubroom for women in domestic service was opened in Brooklyn, New York, at 262 Schermerhorn Street, in a very simple way, but the interest is most marked. The Protective Service Club, at 150 Fifth Avenue, believing that the best way to reach this question of training is from the social side, has opened clubrooms with fair conditions of membership. Already the girls are asking for training classes, and they are willing to pay for the lessons. The influence of this club has been felt in giving the girls a sense of honor about keeping their word, and not leaving places where they have been permanently engaged, because former employers, who have “been kind to them,” write and offer higher wages if they will return to them.

One day I was looking for work in Chicago, answering advertisements for a place as a general housemaid. At one place, the lady opened the door a few inches, and I said,—

“Madam, I have come to apply” — She interrupted me with, “I want a young girl,” and slammed the door as quick as a flash.

Do you know, I never felt old before.

Now most people want young girls. The intelligence - office keepers say, because they can “drive them around.” That may be the reason, but if the girls can once be made to grasp the fact that training will make their heads save their heels, their brains save their hands, so that they will not be old at forty-five, worn out at fifty, and at sixty be satisfied with the fact that they have enough to be buried with, but will still be capable of earning their living, then I believe they will seek for themselves the training and education which they need. The movement for their own uplifting must come from themselves, but it is within our province to encourage and direct the tendencies which shall culminate in such a movement.

I do not put forth this suggestion of the club as a remedy for all the difficulties of the domestic problem, but the idea is worth trying.