for his dinner. Every householder finds that in the late evening her
"servants" entertain their numerous "cousins" and friends at her
expense. Moreover, they do not hesitate to use the best china, glass,
and silver for special parties and draw upon the household supplies for
the choicest meats and wines. And because they cannot go out in the day
time, it is not unusual to find some friend or relative comes to spend
the entire day with them, and in consequence the housewife not only
feeds her "help" but a string of hangers-on as well. Why should she be
surprised that she does not get an adequate return for the amount of
money she spends? And these things take place, not only during the
temporary absence of the employer, but even while she is sitting
peacefully in the library and listening to a parlor lecture on the
relations of capital and labor.

Women say tearfully or bravely on such occasions: "What can be done
to make servants better? They are getting worse every day." And the
housewife (one might almost call her by Samuel Pepys's pleasing phrase,
"the poor wretch") then pours out to any sympathetic ear endless
recitals of aggravating, worrying, nerve-racking experiences. Instead of
putting an end to such a regrettable state of affairs that would never
be tolerated by any business employer, she seems content to bewail her
fate and clings still more steadfastly to obsolete methods.

Why does she not adopt the methods of the business man in dealing with
his employees? The advisability of having household employees live
outside their place of employment is so apparent that it ought to appeal
to every one. There would be no longer the necessity of putting aside
and of furnishing certain rooms of the house for their accommodation:
a practice which in the majority of families is quite a serious
inconvenience and always an expense. In small homes where only one maid