May i8, 1888.] 



SCIENCE. 



233 



■cooking probably waste little if any thing. It is with the servant- 

 ikeeping class that waste begins. Every servant throws away that 

 which her mistress would save were she doing her own cooking ; 

 and the higher up in the social scale we go, the more expensive and 

 varied the table, the more frightful is the waste. Of course, 

 nothing can stop this but the constant supervision of the house- 

 mistress in precisely the way that the careful German /iaus-f?-ait, and 

 the French middle-class woman or botirgeoise, keep a dragon 

 watch over their respective cooks ; and it is to be doubted whether 

 this will ever be the case with us while American men make 

 money so easily, and are so generous with it as hitherto. It is, of 

 ■course, a perpetual slavery to the house-mistress — a tying-down 

 to three meal-times a day — when the servant must be superin- 

 tended and watched ; for this must go on not only while she is 

 preparing the food, but also while she is clearing the remnants of 

 it away. Fourth, I have given what I consider the one and only 

 solution, and a perfectly comprehensive one, of all the waste of 

 ■contemporary housekeeping, as well as of its innumerable im- 

 perfections and shortcomings, in the theory of ' Co-operative House- 

 keeping.' If housekeepers never combine to keep house, i.e., to 

 ,make homes in the best and cheapest manner possible, house-keep- 

 ing and home-making never will and never can become to every 

 member of the civilized human family what it can and ought to be. 

 Meantime perhaps the best thing that could be done for the poor 

 ■would be to insist on every girl of twelve or fourteen years of age 

 who leaves the grammar-schools, learning how to make a savory 

 stew out of cheap meat, and also how to make thick soups (what 

 the French cs}\ puree) out of dried pease and beans, and also out 

 of potatoes, onions, celery, spinach, etc. I know that poor women 

 ■constantly wash and sew for a living, and bring up their children 

 on tea and bread chiefly. Of course these are cheaper at the 

 moment, and easier, than even a cheap meat-stew; for cheap tea 

 is certainly a very cheap way of getting motive power to work, 

 probably the cheapest there is. But if poor women knew how to 

 make a cheap stew that is really appetizing and satisfying, per- 

 haps they would more often do it." 



Prof. J. B. Clark of Northampton, Mass., agrees that the poor, 

 in common with other classes, depart from the rule of a maximum 

 of nutriment for a given sum ; but the departure is, in his opinion, 

 rather beneficial than otherwise. If any class in America above 

 the very lowest were to consume as much food as they now do, 

 and were to select the kinds that offer the largest amount of nutri- 

 ment for the money, they would suffer from the worst physiological 

 ■effects of over-eating. There is, however, a general habit of con- 

 suming too much sugar for either health or economy, and of using 

 unnecessarily expensive grades of flour and meat. 



Prof. Edward W. Bemis of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, 

 Tenn., agrees with Professor Atwater as to the great wastefulness 

 almost everywhere prevalent in this country, but to the list of rea- 

 sons assigned by him, would add another as also operative in con- 

 siderable measure in the case of the average wage-earner. As he 

 writes, " it is generally believed by the latter that wages tend to 

 fall toward the customary cost of living, to that point which will 

 sustain a given class of workers in their usual comforts ; and that, 

 in consequence of this, any denial of one's taste which is involved 

 in the use of the cheaper and more nutritious, but even, according 

 to Professor Atwater, less palatable foods, will only result in the 

 end, if generally adopted, in lower wages. To estabUsh this de- 

 pendence of wages on average expenditures is the sole aim of 

 George Gunton's recent book, ' Wealth and Progress.' At one 

 time the reasoning on which the above book and the general belief 

 of our workingmen are founded seemed conclusive to the writer, 

 and the presentation of the argument, as it then appeared to me, 

 drew out, in private conversation with a prominent writer and ad- 

 vocate of Professor Atwater's views, the candid admission that 

 ■' perhaps, after all, the great benefit of this more scientific choice 

 and preparation of food will consist in prevention of dyspepsia,' — one 

 of the few ailments from which the poor are comparatively free. 

 He was right, provided the theory of wages just quoted — which, 

 fae it noted, is quite a modification of the so-called ' iron law ' — is 

 correct. This I do not believe ; that is, it seems to be true only 

 with this important change, — that wages tend to fall to that point 

 which will maintain the workman in his usual comfort, and permit 



of his usual savings ; the latter, it is true, being now small or non- 

 existent, and both the standard of comfort and savings being sub- 

 ject to fall in times of long-continued industrial depression or cut- 

 throat competition from the unemployed or from immigrants used 

 to a lower standard of living, but also (and this is most important) 

 being subjected to great and general increase with education and 

 enlargement of social wants. Money saved by the use of cheaper 

 and equally nutritious food may be invested in banks and co-opera- 

 tive building and loan associations, called in Massachusetts ' co- 

 operative banks,' and wages be still maintained at the old rates : 

 for the money saved will become the capital of its borrowers, and 

 thus increase competition for labor. This is no place for a full 

 discussion of the subject, though one's theory of wages is the per- 

 haps unconscious basis of nearly all discussion of economy of food 

 as applied to the elevation of the masses, in which aspect Professor 

 Atwater's ideas attain their widest importance. If wages may be 

 kept as much above one's standard of living, after allowing for the 

 rewards of the capitalist and employer, as the general thrift, intel- 

 ligence, and power of combination of the workmen may secure, and 

 not necessarily fall with the use of less expensive and equally nu- 

 tritious diet (as most wage-earners, both in and out of the unions, 

 believe), then the present widespread and natural objection of the 

 masses to the views of Professor Atwater will be fully met." Pro- 

 fessor Bemis therefore urges, first, afar deeper study of the theories 

 of wages, and a far wider dissemination of correct views on the 

 subject among the masses, as a necessary preliminary to instruc- 

 tion upon the direct question of food-supply. 



The opinion of the majority of the replies is well given by Mr. F. 

 E. Manson of the Kennebec Jourrzal, Augusta, Me., who writes, 

 " I have observed, even among the employees of our own establish- 

 ment, the tendency to bad economy, especially in early spring, 

 when food-articles first coming upon the market are sold at out- 

 rageous prices. Again : the purchases made the year through at 

 the provision-stores show the tendency toward luxury instead of 

 healthful and strength-giving food. There is no doubt in my mind 

 that there is a vast diminution of the real fuel-properties of food 

 in the way it is cooked by the very people who most need its every 

 strength-giving property. One has simply to sit down at a table to 

 evidence this. There is here a cause of the very condition (' of 

 moderate means ') of our people. To make the most of food- 

 articles is yet a lesson to be learned. Generally among our people 

 an article of food once cooked is considered done. The parts not 

 eaten are wasted ; whereas if the parts had been separated before 

 cooking, and cooked in different ways, or separated after cooking 

 and re-served in a different form, all the nutritious properties would 

 have been consumed, and economy practised." 



In reply to one inquiry. Gen. F. A. Walker of Boston writes, 

 " Among people of moderate means in the United States there un- 

 questionably is great waste, resulting aUke from indifference and 

 from ignorance ; but among the very poor the waste is simply 

 hideous. Cheated often in quantity, quality, and price at the retail 

 stores, the great majority of the women of the poorest class, who 

 are generally foreigners, are altogether incapable of managing what 

 they get for their scanty incomes, with true economy. They lose 

 in storing their supplies, in cooking them, in serving them. Even 

 this is not so bad as the injury done to health and to personal 

 habits (through the promotion of intemperance) by frying food, by 

 the use of saleratus, and by the bad management of fires during 

 the process of cooking. Much can be done by the intelligent and 

 benevolent to promote a better economy of the small means of the 

 very poor, through lectures, newspaper paragraphs, and house- 

 visiting. But it is with the cooking-school that the hope of a bet- 

 ter generation of housekeepers and domestic cooks chiefly lies. 

 The economy of food and materials here secured is quite as re- 

 markable as the superiority of results in wholesome, cleanly, ap- 

 petizing food. On the former point let me cite a single instance. 

 At the Tennyson Street School, in Boston, the amount of coal con- 

 sumed during the first nine weeks of the present school-year, in 

 keeping the range ready to cook, from half-past nine to four o'clock 

 each day, five days in the week, was only one-quarter of a ton. 

 No one can visit the school to which I have referred without being 

 impressed by the truly and highly educational character of the 

 teaching given, as well as by the immense practical value of what 



