New-York tribune., 1889-12-22
HOUSEHOLD SERVICE REFORM.

Why is the domestic servant goingP Mr..
Bellamy, in an article which he contributes to
"Good Housekeeping" attempts to answer this
question. He asserts that the domestic servant
is going because the democratic spirit of the
age has rendered and is rendering the relation
of personal servitude unpopular" Then he
goes on TO state that " domestic service implies
a sacrifice of personal dignity in the relation
of the employe to the employer, which at the
nresent day is required of no other class of
workers and would be endured by none.
In no other relation of hire is submissive and
even obsequious manner toward the employer
made a requisite" One wonders how Mr..
Beamy came by this information concerning
what householders regard as requisite" in
cooks. nurserymaids, sewing girls, and the rest
of those who render domestic service. lie
certainly could not have acquired it by OBJ
servation of the average American home Pos
sibly he evolved it from his inner conscious
ness as he did his scheme for hurying in the
millennium.
MistresSes, as rule, do not exact "a sub
missive and even obsequious manner from
their servants, and the exceptions are not
numerous enough to be worth considering
| Nistresses are of two sorts, those who practlse
the Golden Rule and those who disregard it,
The former are incapable OF treating any OF
their felow-creatures unhandsomely, and hence
would resent rather than invite " a submissive
and even obsequious' manner from those In
their service The latter take just as good
care on purely selfish grounds not to make " a
| Submissive and even obsequious" manner
"requisite." For they realize that to attempt
10 enforce such a requisite would be the surest
way of turning the domestic servant who Is
" going, into one who has actually gone. The
natent fact is that those in domestic service are
as we'll treated as any body of workers engaged
in any kind of manual labor. The " hired girl.
may be going, but her exodus Will not Dc que
10 the reason that Mr.. Bellamy assigns. This
talk of her personal dignity" being sacnhced
is nonsense.
What can be done without the servant that
is going? He has his answer all ready-co-
operation. The cooperative laundry, the CO.
onerative kitchen, and related cooperative
agencies are to more than make good her loss
and bring in the golden age of housework
But would they? 1t is a democratic age, Dut
there are serious objections to the common wash
of a vast cooperative laundry which will be
apt to occur to the fastidious. cooperative
Kitchen is theoretically good. But we notice
that those who have had their meals served to
them from the outside are rarely satisfied with
,be arrangement. A catering company OR a
large scale did business in this town some years
400. Where is that company now? 1t found
II more profitable to stop than to go on. There
! ;s another and a more general reason which
,,iu he urged against Mr.. Belamy's remedy.
Co-oneration of the sort proposed will be OPP
nosod bv many who see in it certain INVASION
Of the privacy of the family. One OF the
| hiocronbers of Washington says that he mad
,.orv little private life. 1t is the tendency OF
.ho ooe 70 reduce private life to the minimum,
ad NAM thoughtful persons hold that CO.
onoration of the proposed kind has IN 1t an
element which contributes to this tendency.
Another pont-who is to work in these CO.
lucrative institutions, if not the eX-servant
c;rls2 But will they find their personal dig
nitvr conserved by the change? Is it certain
nnt tho managers of the laundries and kitchens
,,ould not insist upon some disagreeable
:. roouisites"? Might not the last state OF the
,,;r,s no less agreeable than the first? That
tho co.operative system could be successfully
o,nIed to some branches of housework is evil
don't But Mr.. Bellamy takes too optimistic
view of its potentiality. His proposition is
that "eyerythng" can be done without the
servant girl by the aid of cooperation. This
we submit is too sweeping.