The herald., 1897-02-07

on the hemisphere. But it takes the
strongest individuality to follow them.
There is no other place where these fin
er aims are so easily undermined. There
is a constant and bewilderins assault
upon them. Are they worth while? This
is the city of fun and splendor. Only the
stout heart refuses to be beguiled by the
type set by the lavish money spenders.
Boston and New England are differ
ent. Al wider variety of money-spend-
ing types are in easy evidence. Glitter
dominates less in proportion to other
things. Money saving and thrift are
pretty important there. Education is al
ways worth family self-denial. Fam
ilies which in New York would spend
their moderate income on high rents
and carriage hire, in New england will
prefer to spend it on modest trips abroad
or in owning a suburban home. In short,
it takes less grit to follow out ones in
dividuality in Boston than in New York.
simply because a wider assortment OF
money-spending types is set by the
well-to-do.
Philadelphia differs also in its way.
Glitter counts little there. AT night
many ladies in fullest evening toilette
still go in the street cars; opera nights
make Broad street like foyer as the
richest gowns discard carriages and cafe
and scamper to the cars. The thrifty
cash into capital.
Both Chicago and San Francisco are
akin to New York in prodigality of
money spending. The same absorption
in the idea of getting the largest amount
of display and momentary pleasure pre-
walls in both. Riches are esteemed for
their power to produce splendor and to
crafty the less cultivated whims. The
great ma jority of the wealthy set the
loy ;dno1S hU tho Snartacnlar
in which they shovel out their fortunes.
In both these cities we see New York's
way carried further, though not refined
by New Yorl's imitativeness OF the old
world.
When the influence of the irrational,
spectacular money-spending of these
great cities reaches the small towns we
often see grotesque developments of the
type they have set. The city opportuni-
ties are such that when we chose our
mode of expenditure we can do it enSuite,
as it were; we can be consistent and
spend for things that match each other.
But country opportunities are so made
quate that il We try to be easy spenders
we are very apt to make queer plunges,
and get certain things which seem fan
tastic because we cannot keep up to
them.
We know how women who have this
cradle parts of the country, will have
diamonds for themselves and all their
daughters, and yet are without SER
want who would enable them to have
time for some Of the graces of civilizn-
ton. Every member of the family must
have bicycle, but the house Is so small
that they swarm in it, without knowing
what privacy means. Or mammoth
house is built, which is never furnished
with artistic or choice things, and the
family eats in the kitchen.
1t is a familiar sight on western rail-
roads to see country folk so poorly clad
as to excite pity, taking long and ex-
pensive journeys; they are going no
where, except from one shut-in village
to another just as uninteresting, on a
visit to people whose lives are as mar
row as their own. In Yankeeland peo-
pie of no more means would bide at home
until they had collars and wool dresses
to wear; and when they did travel they
would seek to include some city on their
trip which would enlarge their view and
give food for new thought. But the
comfortless traveller we so continually
see in the west gves a-railroading be-
cause, to his imagination. riding in the
cars seems one of the splendid oppor-
tunities which wealth affords
They that are rich among us have
grave responsibility for the types of
money spending they set. If leaders
among the wealthy will spend their
largest sums for the things in our civil
ization which are really of most worth
in happiness for themselves they will
give their countrymen other attractive
types besides that Of gaudy glitter and
monetary pride. But that is only saying