Part 7 (1/2)

A SAFEGUARD FOR THE FAMILY

Many Gere; but the editors of ”Puck,” it seems, are not In a certain number of that comic journal, there was an unfavorable cartoon on this refor nu illustration of the vast seaside hotels of the future, with the cheering announcement, ”Only one -room,”--a lady cae It seeinal cartoon depicted in the corner a pretty fa father, ether, with the melancholy motto, ”Nevermore, nevermore!”

And when the correspondent, Mrs Blake, very naturally asks what this touching picture has to do oe, Puck says, ”If the husband in our 'pretty family scene' should propose to vote for the candidate as obnoxious to his wife, would this 'pretty family scene' continue to be a doion in which Dante spent his 'fortnight off'?”

It is beautiful to see how much anxiety there is to preserve the family

Every step in the modification of the old common lahereby the as, in Baron Alderson's phrase, ”the servant of her husband,” was resisted as tending to endanger the family The proposal that the wife should control her own earnings, so that her husband should not have the right to collect thelish advocates, in the celebrated case of the Hon Mrs Norton, the poetess, to imperil all the future peace of British households

Even the liberal-e was founded in England, expressed grave doubts whether the harmony of wedded unions would not receive a blow, from the time ives should be liable to know e relation has withstood these innovations It has not been is, or independent Greek: can it be possible that a little voting will overthrow it?

The very ground on which woe these fears If, as we are told, woest induce those inducements to bear? and, if so, what is the separation? Or if, as we are told, women will merely reflect their husbands' political opinions, why should they dispute about theh to quarrel for, implies a real difference of convictions or interests, and indicates that there ought to be an independent representation of each; unless we fall back, once for all, on the common-law tradition that man and wife are one, and that one is the husband Either the antagonisms which occur in politics are comparatively superficial, in which case they would do no harm; or else they touch matters of real interest and principle, in which case every huood deal of risk In either case, the objection falls to the ground

We have fortunately a , with some fairness of estienerally admitted--and certainly no German-American will deny--that the most fruitful sources of hostility and war in all tiious, not political All onism, certainly all which is possible in a republic, fades into insignificance before this reat explosive force in unimpeded operation,--at any moment it may be set in action, in any one of those ”pretty family scenes”

which ”Puck” depicts,--while we are sole the comparativelyawithon religious matters, few families are seriously divided by them; and the influence of political differences would be still nificant

The simple fact is that there is no better basis for union than mutual respect for each other's opinions; and this can never be obtained without an intelligent independence, ”I would rather have a thorn in my side than an echo,” said Emerson of friendshi+p; and the same is true of married life It is the echoes, the nonentities, of whorow tired; it is the women with some flavor of individuality who keep the hearts of their husbands This is only applying in a higher sense what Shakespeare's Cleopatra saw When her hand how to hold a lover, and one says,--

”Give way to hi,”--

Cleopatra, from the depth of an unequalled experience, retorts,--

”Thou speakest like a fool: the way to lose him!”

And what ”the serpent of old Nile” said, the wives of the future, who are to be wise as serpents and hars different to make a union; and part of that difference may as well lie in matters political as anywhere else

WOMEN AS ECONOMISTS

An able lawyer of Boston, arguing the other day before a legislative co to the city council a check upon the expenditures of the school coave as one reason that this body would probably include more women henceforward, and that women were ordinarily more lavish than men in their use of money The truth of this assumption was questioned at the time; and, the more I think of it, the more contrary it is to my whole experience I should say that women, from the very habit of their lives, are led to be more particular about details, and more careful as to small economies The very fact that they handle less money tends to this When they are told to spendor ambitious husbands, they no doubt do it freely: they have naturally more taste than men, and quite as much love of luxury In some instances in this country they spend money recklessly and wickedly, like the heroines of French novels; but as, even in brilliant Paris, the woers than theAmerica, the sa e;” and who has not seen multitudes of instances where women accustomed to luxury have accepted poverty without a murmur for the sake of those whoirl, accustoed herself to a young naval officer, against the advice of the friends of both One of her near relatives said to irls I have ever known, she is the least fitted for a poor e she brought their joint expenses within his scanty pay, and even saved a little money from it Everybody knows such instances We hear ance of woars, on clubs and horses, that their wives spend on their toilet If the wives are econoreater lavishness ”Why do you not dress like Mrs

So-and-so?”--”I can't afford it”--”But _I_ can afford it;” and then, when the bills coance reco the summer visitors as reported to be Worth's best customer was also well known to be quite indifferent to society, and to go into it mainly to please her husband, whose social ambition was notorious

It has often happened to anizations where both sexes were represented, and where expenditures were to be made for business or pleasure In these I have found, as a rule, that the women were more careful, or perhaps I should say : the bolder financial experi the other day with the secretary of an important educational enterprise, conducted by women, I was surprised to find that it was crae subscriptions were said to have beenpledged themselves for four years, had divided the a themselves, for the first year, to one quarter part of what had been subscribed No board of men would have done so Any board of men would have allowed far more than a quarter of the su that if the enterprise began well it would co in additional subscriptions as time went on I would appeal to any one whose experience has been in joint associations of men and women, whether this is not a fair state It does not prove that women are more honest than men, but that their education or their nature makes them more cautious in expenditure

The habits of society make the dress of a fashi+onable woman far more expensive than that of aas it was not so, the extravagance of men in this respect quite equalled that of women It now takes other forms, but the habit is the same The waiters at any fashi+onable restaurant will tell you that what is a cheap dinner for a man would be a dear dinner for a woman Yet after all, the test is not in any particular class of expenditures, but in the business-like habit Men are of course e combinations, for they are more used to them; but for the small details of daily economy women are more watchful The cases where woance are exceptional As a rule, theand contriving come from the women

GREATER INCLUDES LESS

I was once at a little musical party in New York, where several accoers were present, and with them the eminent professional, Miss Adelaide Phillipps The amateurs were first called on