THE CONGRESS OF WOMEN.

235

While the cooking schools have played a most important feature in the revolu­tionizing of the preparation of our daily food, still, they have not solved the prob­lem. They have rather added to the complications. However, we wish to do full justice to the work that these schools have done.

The difficulty in this department of women’s work is that many of those women who are the best housekeepers do not join with us and give us the benefit of their long years of experience.

If one has found a better way of doing some part of housework, why not share this knowledge with those who are wasting their strength and time by going on in the old way? It is the little things that count in the wear and tear of housework, and the trouble is, so many have not the time to give to the investigation of some shorter and easier way. It is the reporting of these small items which add to the usefulness of an association like ours.

We do not endeavor to suddenly change the existing order of things in our kitchens. The work of the association is not in any sense revolutionary. We do not establish, or try to establish any set rules as to how this work should be done; but, what we do hope to bring about is a more intelligent understanding of the existing condition. First, we must fully understand the case before we can suggest any changes, or make any efforts to remove the cause of dissatisfaction. Each woman in her home, not comparing her method with that of another, has little or no chance of getting out of the dull routine. That there is this routine we think no one will ques­tion.

Spasmodically, in our newspapers and in our magazines comes up this outcry of what can be done to obtain a better class of domestic service in our homes. This wave of inquiry goes over the country periodically; but dies down with little or no sat­isfactory answer.

The justice of the remarks, the correctness of the criticisms made upon the queer way women conduct their household affairs is justly merited. Occasionally, remedies are suggested; but, very little advance is made, and the interest dies down at the end of the year to be taken up by another set of writers before the next ten months have run their course.

It is the hope of this association that the next ten years will bring about quietly and steadily a better state of affairs. For this reason we have adopted the constitu­tion and by-laws. We have carefully considered every line in this long constitution and by-laws, and we feel convinced that no one can question the importance of the objects for which we are organized.

This is said to be an era of women’s clubs. But we find it would be easier to organize art clubs, Browning clubs, classes in the study of mediaeval art, or even the study of Sanscrit, than to start housekeeper’s clubs in our various towns and villages.

The explanation for this state of affairs is, women are willing to let housekeeping drift along in the old way, not recognizing that housekeeping is one of the fine arts, and can only be acquired by study and patient work.

In summing up the year’s work last October, one thing which we had pledged ourselves to take hold of, was to establish a school for household science. We had made a study of the plans outlined in the Pratt Institute, of Brooklyn, N. Y. We found this the best of any we had heard of, but with our limited means could do nothing to establish such a school; yet nothing short of that would be satisfactory to us.

In the meanwhile, Armour Institute was started on Thirty-third street, with Dr. Gunsaulus as president, and we soon learned that Armour Institute was to be modeled after Pratt Institute.

Dr. Gunsaulus has recognized the importance of a school of household science, and added that to their curriculum, and in their institute will be given the opportu­nity for our young girls to become fully instructed in scientific housekeeping. The Columbian Association of Housekeepers is recognized on their advisory council.