Industrial freedom. [volume] (Edison, Wash.) 1898-1???, 1899-06-10
Private Kitchens.

Private Kitchens.
Tersely | would like to state that as can
understand it am socialist "died in the
WOOL" all the unpleasantnesses of this life
are, believe, the result of some ones mis-
takes. | believe socialism, if applied, will
help us to overcome more of the evils, re-
suting from the mistakes of our race than
any other remedy | have ever heard of or
studied
Two of the basic principles seem to be the
obligat on of every ablebodied person to
give to their generation certain amount of
service-the amount is of course determined
by circumstances and to receive from socie-
ty a certain income. When this is done the
right of society to dictate to the individal
ceases Except in matters of public welfare or
safety. Is more than this the right of So
ciety? Can the individual grant less and
give and receive the greatest good from his
generation? To accomplish aud obtain all
this involves the various necessities of mans
"3-ply'' nature. and first in the order of ne
cessity is his physical wants, the most DIFF
lcult one to satisfactorily satisfy Is what to
eat.
The condition of the physical man are so
varied and so subject to change that any diet
for the multitude is impossible. What is
good for one is not good for another. What
is good for them at one time they would not
relish at another. | have heard persons tell
of giving the same order for year at a time
but the best would become repulsive to me in
much less time. There is nothing so good
that | would want it 800 times in succession.
What IL host 81 l.. al.
individual. No one else knows so well what
Jou want as yourself, what to eat. how to eat,
and when to eat. The sensible individual
can best decide for himself, think, and
with the public or general kitchen this is
practically impossible unless of course the
variety and supply are unlimited.
But hear some one say it's so much more
economical. Is it? Let's look into the mat
ter a little. But granting that it is, is econ
omy Jas the word is generally used) the only
consideration? The greatest good is quite as
important. 1t may be more economical, i. e.
cheaper, to use a monotoncus diet than a
varied one. 1t undoubtedly is; but does it
give the best result. We are supposed to eat
to live. 1t is a necessity. AT the same time
food that the healthy system requires is not
repulsive to you, you may feel sure for the
time at least it is not what you need If you
are well. Sick persons I'd leave to the NJ.
d. to decide for. Not only what you want
but how much you want. Each individual is
the best Judge, and in this kind of distribu-
tion think there is no more waste than in
the public kitchen and much greater satis-
faction. A public kitchen or hotel win be
necessity as long as transient people eat, and
those who like so to be served should have
the privilege. Is not the same consideration
due to those of different minds. In the mat
ter of cooking utensils it is the private kitch-
en- may be greater expense; but again
say minimum expense is not the only OBJ
lect in life. AS TO time: from what thought
| have given the matter there Is very little
difference. II half the ladies prefer to get
their own breakfast there is lots of time to
do it and be ready for public work at : a. m
1t would also take fewer in the public kiteh-
en- and they could give infinitely better salts
faction to those who were so served. There
is limit to the quantity of potatoes that
can be well warmed in one dish as well as to
the ability of one person to handle two or
three different dishes simultaneously.
would like to hear from every woman in
Equality.
An Old Maid Cook
--~--~-.~--v~----~~~