154 



AMERICAN HOMES AND GARDENS 



September, 1905 



Monthly Comment 



|S HOME life deteriorating? Mrs. Henry 

 Mills Alden says it is, and in proof of her 

 assertion draws an interesting picture of the 

 old-type home life, with the various mem- 

 bers of the family busily engaged, of an 

 evening, in quiet domestic work or in read- 

 ing, and contrasts it with the home life of to-day, in which 

 the elder women are away intent on outside activities, the 

 men out at the club, even the boys finding entertainment out- 

 side the home walls. All this is true enough, but, as Mrs. 

 Alden herself points out, it is a tendency of the time rather 

 than any deliberate perversion of home ideals. This new 

 aspect of home life is, however, well worth consideration, 

 even though it is unlikely that the pendulum will swing back 

 to the old-fashioned standards, which have such great written 

 charm, but which few people nowadays care to put into 

 actual practice. 



It is a curious fact that while this changed conception — 

 or rather this new development of the home life — is becom- 

 ing quite universal, the modern home has been improved 

 almost beyond comparison with the homes of our fore- 

 fathers. It is true, there are still few rooms so altogether 

 charming, restful and delightful as the good old Colonial 

 room — the genuine article, if you please, not the modern 

 imitation. For pure charm, thoroughly permeating in its 

 effect, no modern rooms, as a whole, can compete with it. 

 But the modern room is better adapted to modern needs, and 

 the modern house, as a whole, is a much more habitable 

 dwelling than the old house ever was or could be. More- 

 over, nothing is now spared to make the modern home as 

 attractive as possible — neither expense nor effort is avoided 

 to accomplish this end; and yet, strange as it appears, the 

 tendency of modern home life is away from the house, and 

 our pleasant modern apartments are seldom used for the 

 quiet, restful purposes of home life. 



Notwithstanding this there is no reason to look for- 

 ward to the extinction of the house as a dwelling. If that 

 condition arises it will not be from pure neglect of the house, 

 but because, in the cities at least, the pressure of population 

 will become so great that space can be had only for the most 

 necessary apartments, and each person have, in short, but a 

 small sleeping place, the whole of the day's life, both for 

 work and for recreation, being passed elsewhere. Even this 

 will be no new thing, for the splendid buildings erected in 

 ancient Rome as places of public resort met an absolute need 

 in giving the citizens a common meeting place and a common 

 play place where much of the daily Roman life was spent. 

 Things have changed greatly since those days, when now 

 every laborer seeks to own his own home, and in many cases 

 has it. 



American artists, as a class, do not form a highly re- 

 spected portion of the community. The work they do con- 

 tributes nothing to the physical necessities of mankind, and 

 its intellectual value, counted as mental food, is not much 

 considered. They are of a jealous and quarrelsome disposi- 

 tion, attaching unusual importance to minor things, working 

 in a way that no one not an artist thinks laborious, doing 

 pretty much as they please and when they please. They do 

 not seem to be governed by the ordinary rules of life, and 

 eke out a precarious existence in a way that few understand 



and appreciate. It is a significant fact that the most success- 

 ful art exhibitions in America — those of the Pennsylvania 

 Academy of the Fine Arts in Philadelphia — have been ar- 

 ranged and conducted by a layman; while the exhibitions in 

 New York, which are entirely controlled by artists, are only 

 important because they happen to be held in the metropolis. 

 The single important thing the artists as a body have accom- 

 plished in New York has been the organization of the Fine 

 Arts Federation, which was started by an architect, but 

 which, representing all the art societies of the metropolis, has 

 actually attained political importance by being designated in 

 the city charter as the body to make nominations from which 

 the Mayor shall select the appointed members of the Mu- 

 nicipal Fine Arts Commission. Yet neither artistic merit nor 

 achievement lay at the bottom of this, for at the organization 

 of the Federation a certain group of societies, which had the 

 word " art " in their title, were invited to form it, irrespec- 

 tive of the artistic achievements of its members or its own 

 artistic worth. Things might be better managed now; but 

 this is literally what happened when the Fine Arts Federa- 

 tion was organized about ten years ago. 



Prof. J Laurence Laughlin has performed a much- 

 needed public service in his discussion of great fortunes in 

 the Atlantic Monthly. The prejudice against large accumu- 

 lations of wealth by those who have not accumulated it has 

 been so pronounced and outspoken that some careful, 

 thoughtful words on the subject have long been needed. 

 Prof. Laughlin rightly recognizes these protests as a form 

 of public clamor originating in an unthinking manner and 

 developed with unthinking venom. His article, while not 

 published in an organ likely to be read by the protestants 

 against wealth, must do much good. His subject, in a nut- 

 shell, he says, is this: The indictment of all wealth without 

 discrimination is folly; for large fortunes may be honorably 

 won and honorably spent, fortunes honorably won may be 

 dishonorably spent, and fortunes may be dishonorably won 

 and dishonorably spent. This is a sane, cautious and sound 

 statement of the case, and deserves the very widest circula- 

 tion. In the course of his argument Prof. Laughlin cites 

 two notable examples of the creation of large fortunes, both 

 by the building of railroads. One is that of Baron Hirsch, 

 who gained a large fortune by the building of railroads in 

 southeastern Europe; the other is that of the first Vanderbilt, 

 whose railroad building sagacity opened up connection be- 

 tween the Great Lakes and the Atlantic, and paved the way 

 for further developments in the West. Prof. Laughlin 

 rightly points out that if each of these railroad pioneers, both 

 of whom ventured much in their enterprises, took out fifty 

 or more millions each, they only did so because, at the same 

 time, they created vast new wealth in the regions which they 

 developed. This is a very clear statement of the origin of 

 two great modern fortunes, and Prof. Laughlin cites other 

 instances, which make evident the necessity of knowing what 

 one is talking about before unfair and unjust criticism of 

 wealth is indulged in. Much of this talk is pure envy and 

 spite, and is only significant because it is heard on every side, 

 and is as misleading as it is unwise. Prof. Laughlin's article 

 must greatly help in bringing about a truer view of the case. 



It is sound and wise in every particular, characterized by 

 great good sense ably applied to a most important topic. 

 It is not the less so because it emanates from a professor in 

 the University of Chicago. 



