The times., 1899-09-03
MISTRESS VS.. MAID.
German Servants Are Determined to
Defy Old Rules.

The servant girl problem is rampant in
Berlin. The trouble began with a move
ment organized by several phiIanthropic
society women in behalf Of the suffering
housewife, and so irate became the maids
thereat that they promptly commenced or
ganizing in their own behalf and rival
factions are the result A correspondent.
writing from Berlin to the Chicago Tri-
bune," says;
The movement has been judged from
different points of view, as was to be ex-
pected. The Berlin Neueste Nachrich-
ten" the mouthpiece of the industrial nag
mates, advises householders to dismiss and
blacklist all servants who attend any of the
meetings that are being held. The demo-
cratic sheets think they can find justifi-
cation for the movement in the rather an
tiquated laws regulating the relations be-
tween servants and their employers.
Servants in Prussia live under feudal
legislation. AS is we'll known. modern
principles of liberty were introduced into
the State of Frederick the Great by Hard
enberg and Stein after its inability to meet
reyolutionized France was proved at the
battle of Jena. At this time, 1910. the
legislation concerning the relation between
servants and thsir employers was codihed,
but the fewest possible concessions were
made TO the new ideas. This law is still
in force. 1t is unquestionably one-sided.
The employer may dismiss the servant
without notice for nineteen reasons; the
servant mGy quit for only seven. Without
examining these reasons, of course, this
numerical relationship is meaningless, but
q fair consideration of the law has con-
vinced the democratic elements, at least,
that this mathematical proportion fairly ac-
curately expresses its one-sidedness
IF the servant leaves his or her service
without legal grounds. he or she may be
arrested and forced TO resume the service.
or may even be fined up to $3.50. or inn
prisoned. This clause is by no means
dead letter. 1t is enforced regularly in
the agricultural districts.
Ion the other hand, there is no punish
ment for employers who dismiss their ser
wants without legal grounds Further
more. the employer may chastise the un-
ruly servant The law expressly recog-
niZes his or her right to whip a disobedi-
ent maid or man. 1t is needless to say
that no use is made of this right by the
majority of employers, but IL affords not
! altogether infrequent occasion for police
/ interference and supplies the police courts
/ with regular proportion of their 'grist.
I If the employer whips the servant without
! just cause, the servant may defend him
/ self or herself only in case OF bodily dan
ger.
The servant may not refuse food set be-
! fore him or her unless it is manifestly
! injurious to health or positively offensive
German law is careful to guard personal
honor and insults are punished a severe
ly as blows. An exception, however is
made TO the disadvantage OF servants The
law of 1910 says: Expressions and actions
which would. if intercnanged between
other persons, be regarded as indications
of contempt. may not be so regarded when
used by master or mistress toward a SER
want
This is not without a basis Of common
sense. 1t would occasion no end of trouble
if every impatient word spoken by an irri-
J tated housewife should bring her into
court, but naturally the fact that it is laid
down so in black and white is not without
influence on certain classes OF employers.
Perhaps a more practical complaint. at
! least in the cities, where the demand for
servants is greater than the supply, and
where. consequently. they are fairly free
! from the oppressive operation of the law,
/ is that the bedrooms of the servants are
/ often mere closets, dark, III ventilated,
and in other respects inSanitary