OCR Text |
Show COUND SENSE FOR HOME USE. Miss Corson Says a Tew Words to Touug Housekeepers About Authorities. When so many dopartmeuts m penOQ-Icals penOQ-Icals devoted to women's work are con-' ducted sensibly and with an interest di-' rectly applicable to their needs jt would seem strange that such serious misinformation misinfor-mation should be circulated broadcast if nothing were known cf tho system of clipping and recasting matter already in pjrint. The accusation has been made in nearly near-ly every branch of women's work that women themnolves were always to blame for the comparatively (-mull payment offered new comers in any field of work. In 18:J, when this writer was actively engn-ged in building up an institution for helping women to earn their own livelihood, she met in committee one of the largest man n fact urcw of ready made garments at that time iu the trade. Tho subject under - discussion was the sum per dozen paid for sewing plain calico shirts on the machine, tho ladies of the committee appealing to the employer to advance tho sum beyond fifty c?nts a lozeii. His answer was explicit, and from a business point of view strictly defensible: "Why should I pay more than women offer to work for? I do not regulate the trade price. I used to pay seventy-five cents. Some German women camo here who wanted to buy sewing machines on installments of $1 a week. They had csmfortable homes, and only needed the dollar to pay on the machine. ma-chine. They offerod to do the work for fifty cents. I was obliged to regard my own interests. If the girls who wero already sewing for me would not reduce their rates I had to take the German women." All this was said with much emphasis and gesticulation, and it was the unanswerable truth. It is with sorrow that, after seventeen years' work among women for women, I must repeat tho statement. In every branch of women's work women stand ready to underbid and underrate the work of others. While individually 1 have great satisfaction in the reflection that a new field of work for women has been opened in the teaching and writing of cookery, I regret to believe perforce that numbers of writers are engaged in newspaper work on this subject who have no more real experience than a blind kitten, who laps milk instinctively, instinctive-ly, discriminates between the maternal and bovine fluids. Provided with paste pot and scissors, an array of exchanges and some cookery books, they slash away without knowing what sort of dishes their readers will produce. Poor readers! Pitiable victims to the literary pirate, who cares only for the price he or she receives for each column of patchwork. How is the young housewife to know if her materials are to be wasted and her workmanship derided by the unfortunate eaters of her culinary attempts? - There is only one safety for her; the resolve never to test a recipe which does not bear the name of some acknowledged authority in the world of domestic economy; econ-omy; the personal signature, not some version prepared by an adaptor. Even with the most carefully prepared manuscript manu-script to work from the compositor and proofreader will make mistakes enough; but how much more questionable must be the results when the writer does not really know whether the subject matter is correct? In the publication of my own books, the revised sheets of which were submitted to me, I have never yet had a copy of the first edition that did not contain con-tain some error, perhaps small, but still an error, that had escaped all watchf ul eyes. One more statement and the reader will be left to reflect upon the best way of arriving at a safe basis of operations for the kitchen labors, npon which the comfort of the whole house depends. One of the New York leading dailies has been making signed articles of interest in-terest to women a weekly feature, and even proposing the republication in book form. Heaven save the nnbappy readers if all the subjects touched were treated as superficially and incorrectly as cookery has been! The writer has even had the courage to alter my own recipes after interviewing me to secure them. And recently she favored ino with a description of her method of work. Under half a dozen names she cliis, rewrites a little, sends au article derived (?) from a California publication to ono in tho eastern stated, and vice versa. If ono of her literary friends is good natured enough to give her an opening where some special work has been accented resuhtrlv and naid for fairly, this friend to herself straightway concocts matter of similar import from her various sources of information, sends it in at a low rate, using as a lever the name of the daily she writes for, and having once secured a foothold continues con-tinues to put in so much matter ahead, under her several names, that she sometimes some-times has as many ns forty columns in type covering the field of women's work, and of course shutting out the work of other writers. How she can possibly do such an amount of work is simple enough. She is only a copyist, and every column she "adapts" takes just so much bread away from women who depend npon their honest work for daily sustenance. Let our readers ponder upon this subject. They will wonder less that so many failures fail-ures nttend trials of foramlas they find in papers conducted by editors not personally per-sonally conversant with special lines of arork, p;irticularly of women's work. In conclusion, a word to wise women: If any one working after my own signed formulas has failed to meet with entire success I shall be glad to receive a detailed de-tailed account of the entire matter and do my best to see where lies the occasion of defeat, for I never publish a recipe until un-til I know just what result it will produce pro-duce when worked out exactly according accord-ing to directions. Of course, if any change of any kind is made, or there is nay typograpical error, I um not responsible, respon-sible, and can only point out the correct tray of work. Jultct Cokson. |