The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1888-02-08
The Money Question.

| remember discussing the money
question with Anaximander once, some
thing having happened that led me to
remark that l believed that for wives to
be obliged to ask for money of their
husbands was source of infinite an
noyance to them. He seemed greatly
surprised and assured me that l must
be mistaken and that he could not pos
sibly see how a woman could dislike to
ask money of her husband! OF course
/ put the question to him, if it was such
an agreeable thing for women to do
how would men like to be similarly cir
cumstanced and ask their wives for
every cent of money they wanted to
spend, and probably be asked, " What
in the world do you want money for?"
His reply was characterized by the
vague indefiniteness that lawyers en-
ploy in evading direct answer. We
agreed finally to put the question to
every woman who came as guest in
the house, until there was enough of
cumulative testimony to serve as proof.
The result was that every woman, with
out exception, confirmed my conviction,
and the discussion brought forth some
very funny as we'll as pathetic stories of
wives in connection with their being
obliged to ask for money. One woman
was reported as having gone two full
years subsequent to her marriage, after
spending what she had in her purse as
a bride, with never a penny in her
possession, and she would probably
have continued on in the same beg
carly way if her husband had not no
ticed one day when she was going out
that her gloves were badly worn and
asked her why she did not buy new
pair, when she blurted out, with tears,
have no money" 1t is easy to see
how differently she would have felt
toward him and in her own heart those
two years had her husband treated her
as a partner instead of DEPENDENT
Mary Wagner Fisher.
What fool that woman must have
been. How different the case might
have been had she treated her husband
as partner instead of a master. If
she had possessed sufficient sense to
have said toher husband, need some
money!" or, will take a share of the
profits now," or, in self-respecting,
womanly way, have indicated her need
or wish for money, how much better it
would have been. The husband or
dinarily occupies the place of cashier in
the firm, and partners in business
house consider it no hardship to ask the
cashier for money when they want to,
even though the cashier be partner.
Since writing the above we have
received communication from " "A.
B. b." which to our mind places the
matter in its just and proper light. AS
{" A. b. B." describes it, there can be
no foolishness about asking for money.
There should be common purse. 1t
matters not who carries it or whether
it hangs on nail in the cupboard or
PIES in the bureau drawer, husband and
wife-aye, and children, when old
enough-have their rights there. First
the necessities must be looked after-the
taxes, the interest money on the
mortgage, the minister's salary and
the household eXpenses-and in such
a, family there will be mutual con-
fidence and counsel together about
what must be had, what can be done
without, what luxuries or pleas
ures can be afforded, how Tom can be
sent to college and Mary to the SEM
mary, what it is best to do with the
money brought from the sale of the
two-year- old-steer and where the WOO
money shall go. We can see how il
the family of man who works out anC
receives his money once a week or once
a month there can be an arrangement
by which a certain allowance 1--WE dom
like that word), say a certain portion o.
the earnings, should go each payday tt
the wife; but on a farm, where money
comes in at long and irregular intervals
which must all go, or portion of it
for such needs as " A. b. b." suggests
we cannot see how the wife can have
part of it without asking for what sh'
wants unless she holds the purse ant
does the business (Which she no doub
is often quite able to do), in which cas-
the husband will have to ask for wha
he needs or, poor man, 60 without, witt