Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1886-10-17
SERVITUDE.


COHtHIOHrru|ih.
We now wish to speak Of a relation
than which nothing in the present con-
Stitution Of Society is more essentially
vicious and morally injurious: the rcla-
ton Of domestic servants to their "ma,-
tiers" and "mietresses." We called the
Wage-WOrkers' condition substantial
slavery; that of servants is s"ryiWd" in
substance and form.
American society has wofuiIy retro
graded in this respect. In the beginning
of this century Americans spoke of their
"help;' now it is everywhere ''srryants"
This is mot a mere difference Of words,
bat involves degradation in position.
The servant drops her surname, a vrrita-
bic degradation. for it marks her Us a
person hcncelUrth of no social account;
she is spoken to only to receive orders;
she ahandun5 family life, an ordeal not
required by outdoor workers; shv is
day and night subject to the bidding of
master and mistress. and may be called
to account for every hour out Of the
twenty four. We think it very much To-
the credit of American women, that they
refuse thus to degrade themselves. They
are in pleasing contrast to the so-called
Hrl,,, r,
services for others for--money, or vino
even with apparent satisfaction act rs
the liNeried llunkcys Of our money bags.
Our wagr-Workrrs at least keep alive the
spirit Of discomfort, but who ever mag
nrd THAT our llunkcys could be rebels:
We cannot withstand the temptation
once more to bring forward our friend,
the unrompromiSing ahoIitum5t, to point
Il moral. He, by nature the kindrst of
men. a champion Of the Rights,oG-Man
theory. once commended the English
mrn-servants compared with American
specimens and said: "Whcn pay Il man
to be- a servant, want linn to he a srrN-
ant Suppose a slave huld"r 0ure upon
a time had said in his hearing: II bought
him for slave, and want him to be Il
slave" what would he have Thought OF
such an argument: Thus this system or
rich and poor, of master and servant,
demoraliztS the best Of Us, for it nuur-
i,hes our Glove Of iording it. which is
the greatest obstacle to the growth Of
sympathy,
1t is. moreover, evident that the inSo-
lent indiyiduaIisn which is the moving
power of our present industrial system
necessarily STILES all sympathetic scntl-
mpnts. 1t imcitrS men to pursue their
individual happiness in complete iuditfer-
ence to their fellows. When Herbert
Spencer was here, he told llo that he had
observed, that Americans do not resent
small trespAssc4. Why, if any passer.by
would resent having TO force his tortuous
way on sidewalks. crowded with boxes.
or having his face and clothes covered
with the ewpcpings from our stores, lie
would make himself ridiculous! Spencer
got the cart before the horse. Every in
dividual here is sovereign and says, like
Vanderbilt; "the dearpuhIic be damned :"
and acts accordingly.
Sympathy, however, has proven Itself
q far stronger force than mdivdaaliSn.
The views we now hold on the subject of
Slavery compared with those held by the
good and wise of old prove the growth of
sympathy during the whole historic peri
od of man. And please mark, that even
during this indivdualistic, sceptical age
in which integrity has 50 woiully deteri-
Grated, sympathy has constantly been on
the increase The evidences thereof are
on every side. Look at all the humane
institutions in every sort of misfortune
and malady. Consider how ready men
were to mhict bodily tortures a couple Of
centuries back and how anxious we now
are to avoid doingso Think of the penal