Part 20

The field is a large one and covers many things—beautifying public squares and streets, making front and back yards attractive, improving the schools and school-yards, securing parks for the people, making better the towns’ sanitary conditions, establishing dinner-clubs for factory girls, pushing the right kind of legislation for the community, planting trees, flowers and grass, establishing traveling or stationary libraries, starting church or public lecture courses, public baths, hospitals, suppression of smoke and other nuisances such as overhead telephone wires and ugly advertising boards—oh, there is no end to what can be done! Of course, no two communities need just the same improvements and town and country have different problems, but wherever you live you will find something that can be made better. And we women can do it! “A revolutionizing power as to all that changes the ‘order of one day’ lies in feminine hands, through the use of what is distinctly hers,” says that wise woman who, under the name of “C,” writes those splendid articles called “Home Thoughts” for the New York _Post_.

All this isn’t a matter of theory. These things _have been done_ in many places. And why shouldn’t woman be able to bring about public improvements? More than half the population of the United States are women. In many places we can vote. Everywhere we wield a great influence over those that do vote. And surely we have brains enough.

To my mind, local women’s clubs organized for some such purpose as this are a good deal more worth while than women’s clubs organized merely for self-improvement. Work for the improvement of others—that is the best way to improve yourself. Be a citizen as well as an individual. Women’s literary and current events clubs are good institutions when they don’t try to do foolish things or make us neglect our home duties, but these same clubs might do the world, and the members, too, greater good if they would also turn their attention to helping the whole community to better things.

But to return to that Nebraska letter. I suggest that we keep it till our July number and devote that whole issue to the question of women and civic improvement. I hope that every one of you who has done any work of that kind, or seen it done, will write to the Department and tell us about it. Remember that the July number comes out June 25 and that the letters should reach me about three weeks before that time. Write now.

_FLOWERS FOR JUNE NUMBER_

June is a month of flowers, how will it do to devote the June number to them? That is a very big subject, so we’d better narrow it down a little. Suppose we consider only the ornamental flowers common to our gardens, woods and fields. Let us all contribute something as to the care and raising and nature of them.

We will not “study botany,” as they do in school and college, but, besides collecting information on planting, watering, repotting etc., we can get a very good bird’s eye view if what flowers _are_. Nearly all of us have probably raised flowers or seen them raised, but there are enough interesting facts about them to fill a hundred numbers of our Department. Let us try to collect as many interesting facts as possible so that we can have a broader knowledge when we see them or work with them in the future.

We will not include the plants or trees that bear our common fruits and vegetables. This is a subject by itself and perhaps we can take it up in some later number.

Though we are going to confine ourselves to our common flowers and plants let us get a general idea of where they belong in the vegetable kingdom—in regard to ferns, mosses, mushrooms, sea-weeds, lichens, etc.

For instance, which of these is the nearest relative to the asparagus—the oak, the fern, the lily, the mushroom or the rose? The question isn’t important to us in itself, but a very little effort will enable us to understand the general arrangements of the plants so that it will be an added pleasure all our lives.

What _is_ a plant? What is it composed of? What does it eat? Drink? Breathe? What are the leaves for? The roots? The flowers? Why do plants differ so among themselves? Why does one grow from a bulb, another from fine roots? Why is the seed of a maple put in that peculiar little case you crunch under foot on the pavement?

Oh, there are lots of “whys”! The nice part of it is that it is all very simple, after all. We can find out a great deal with very little trouble. There are plenty of easy books on the subject, nowadays, and a good many people who know about plants. Many of you know all these things, and more, without asking.

The things suggested in the last paragraph _are_ important to us if we are raising flowers. If you raise flowers you are a flower-nurse and a flower-doctor. How can a nurse or doctor do much for a patient unless she knows what the patient eats, drinks and breathes, and what the various members and organs of the patient are for?

Where did our flowers originally come from? Are they all native to America? If not, how did they get here? Were they always as they are now?

How do plants reproduce their kind? Do all plants have seeds? Do seeds always grow into plants just like the one on which they grew? If so, have all the many varieties existed from the first? If not, how can you get another plant like the parent? Do you know what Luther Burbank, the “California Wizard,” is doing? Has a seed one parent or two? Where is it, or where are they? It’s easy to ask questions, isn’t it?

Yes, and it’s surprisingly easy to answer them, if you try. An encyclopedia will help you, if you consult it. So will an unabridged dictionary, though it doesn’t say much and is often very technical. Of course a botany will and there are many “popular” books now that give you much interesting information. Don’t make a lesson out of it. You may be able to answer some or all of the above questions without help of any kind. If not, take a few minutes some time soon and browse around among some of those books and pick up anything that strikes your fancy. If there are no books handy, ask your friends. It is as good as a game of “Authors” any day! If your friends don’t know, you are very lucky. Then you can do a little observing and thinking on your own hook. That is a hundred times better than being told or taught.

There is nothing that can be made more deadly dry and tedious than “botany”: there are few things that can be made more delightful and interesting than a commonsense study of flowers!

Have flowers played a part in history? What was the “War of the Roses?” What is the fleur-de-lis, the emblem of France and used so much in decoration and jewelry? Do you remember the story of Narcissus in Greek mythology? What other flowers have figured in history? Do you remember, in our February number, what royal family had the broom flower as their badge? What is the national flower of Scotland? Of Ireland? Of our country?

Do we Americans use much taste in making bouquets? What is your idea of a really beautiful and artistic bouquet? Do you know the Japanese idea of a bouquet?

Is it healthful to have many plants around you? How do plants keep the water fresh in an aquarium?

Tell us your best remedies for insects that injure plants? What plants are best for the house in winter? In summer? Do you know how to make good window-boxes? Tell us anything you know about plants and their care.

Would your town or district be pleasanter and better to live in if more flowers and trees were growing in it? What are parks worth to a large city? But there. I am running into our subject for July!

Are you supposed to answer all those questions? Bless you, no! No one _has_ to do anything in our Department. We get work enough in our daily lives—our Department is to afford us a change and relief from everyday work. It isn’t any the less play because we can profit by it and learn things from it. And perhaps it will teach us how to turn some of our daily work into an interesting kind of game (if we haven’t learned how to do that already) and yet do it better than we did before. The questions are merely to suggest things for our June number. Pick out a few that interest you and find out something about them or tell us what you know already. Mercy, no! You don’t _have_ to! But you’re likely to find a little of it amusing and pleasant and to add a bit more interest to your life.

If we only know how, and try, we can make our lives _so_ much more pleasant for ourselves and those about us! It is very easy. And it doesn’t take much time or brains or money or anything else, except “gumption” enough to try.

_For May, June and July_

So for May we will continue our discussion of woman’s interest in politics; in June, our common, ornamental flowers, wild and cultivated; in July, what women can do toward improving and beautifying their native town or district.

_Suggest Future Subjects_

I have asked the printer to put the above announcement at the beginning of our Department for the sake of convenience. I believe it will be a good plan to announce our monthly subjects three numbers ahead all the time, so that we can have plenty of time to think them over in advance, make suggestions and send in information.

Now, what shall we have for the August number? If there is something you are interested in or want to talk about or hear others talk about, send it in to the Department. Do this not only for August but for all the following numbers. I chose the subject for the first few months in order to get our plan started. Now I have had more than my share of “chooses” and all the others are for you to select. It may be that I can arrange to have a special prize offered each month for the best monthly topic suggested. I’ll try.

_WHY SHOULD WOMEN BE INTERESTED IN POLITICS?_

There is one answer that is sufficient in itself—Because her daily bread depends upon politics!

Is there any particular reason why she should go about her daily work like a mole and pay no attention to the things that make her life hard or make it easy? Doesn’t she suffer from unjust laws and bad conditions and profit by just laws and good conditions as much as her husband does, or her father, son, or brother?

Someone objects that politics is for the man to take care of; housework is woman’s sphere. That isn’t quite a fair statement of the case. The man’s part in the care of the family is his business: the woman’s is her housework. Politics is a third question. Why should the man alone have this to see to? A good many objections will be offered to this, too, _but all these objections will boil down to just one thing_—because he _does_! And that isn’t any reason at all. If you were asked why little children should work in factories and kill their health and youth, would you consider “Because they do!” a sufficient or sensible reason?

The men say that when women discuss anything they never get anywhere because they fail to _define_ the terms they use, and may all be talking about different things under the same name. I think men make this mistake about as much as we do, but let’s be on the safe side this time and define just what we mean by “politics.”

Politics in our country have become so disreputable that we are likely to feel that having anything to do with them is bad taste or even degrading. It is natural to feel that way, but is it silly, nevertheless. It is bad taste, or even degrading, to have anything to do with a notorious criminal, but _not if you are making him better_ instead of letting him make you worse! This is particularly true when it is partly _your fault that he became a criminal_!

Now as to the definition of politics. The Standard Dictionary gives this:

1. The branch of civics that treats of the principles of civil government and the conduct of state affairs; the administration of public affairs in the interest of the peace, prosperity, and safety of the state; statecraft; political science: in a wide sense embracing the _science_ of _government_ and _civil polity_.

2. Political affairs in a party sense; the administration of public affairs or the conduct of political matters so as to carry elections and secure public offices; party intrigues; political wire-pulling; trickery.

3. A man’s political sentiments, party preference, or connection.

The word, then, has three shades of meaning. The third one we need not bother with, since it merely means any man’s opinion on the things given under Number 1 and Number 2.

Now let’s contrast Number 1 and Number 2. There are some large words there, but if we take it a piece at a time we shall at least see that there is a tremendous difference between the two shades of meaning.

In Number 1 politics means the fair and unprejudiced study of how a nation should be governed, but in Number 2 politics means _How much can you get out of it regardless of the general welfare_!

In Number 1 the object is the “peace, prosperity and safety of the state,” but in Number 2 the object is to “carry elections and secure public offices”—“party intrigues; political wire-pulling; trickery.”

It is Number 1 we are considering primarily. True, if our daily bread depends on politics, we are also interested in “how much we can get out of it,” but we mean by this how much we can get justly and honestly—our equal share _along with everyone else_. “Equal rights to all, special privileges to none.”

No, no! I’m not advocating the People’s Party principles just because I quote one of their watchwords. That motto is not theirs alone, but that of every honest citizen, no matter to what party he belongs. It is merely an expression of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Whatever I may believe personally, it is no part of my business to plead the cause of any political party in our Department. We have nothing to do with parties. Our object is to consider how our nation is governed and how it _should_ be governed—national, state, county, township and city governments, under whatever names these divisions may be called in different places.

We are primarily concerned with definition Number 1. We want to know how our nation should be governed. After that we will consider Number 2, and see how it _is_ governed.

Now, considering the awful amount of writing and talking there is about politics, the infinite number of questions there are to decide, and the unending difference of opinion on these questions, we can see at the outset that we can’t decide it all in two numbers of our Department. Nor in a hundred. We are not going to try to. All we want is an intelligent idea of the general situation and of our duty in the matter.

What is government at bottom? In the beginning there was no government or organization of any kind, not even the family organization. Each man or woman lived his or her own life separate from all others. The first organization came about when a man and woman decided to live together and raise children. They soon found that when they had a child to take care of they could not go on independently of each other as they had before. They had two things to do—to care for the baby and keep it safe every minute from wild beasts and other people, and to secure food for themselves and their child. If they both went hunting for food there was no one to watch the baby; if they both watched the baby, there was no way of getting food. They saw that they had to have some _arrangement_. They had to _divide_ the labor. So the woman tended the baby and the man went hunting for all three. Each of them gave up a little of the former independence and received a new thing in _return_—help from another person. Thus the “family” began. It was the first step towards _society_ and government. They gave up part of their freedom _in return for help_ from others.

People lived by hunting animals and gathering fruits and berries at first. If a man laid by any food for his family, another man was likely to take it away while he was away hunting. He found it pretty hard to have to do anything himself and he at odds with other men. Pretty soon it dawned on him that it would pay to make some “arrangement” with those other men. He wouldn’t rob them, if they didn’t rob him. Later he arranged with a few of them to keep their families close together so that some of the men could protect them while the other men hunted for all. In some such way began the “town.” Each of them gave up a part of his freedom _in return_ for help from others.

When many towns had sprung up these towns began to see they could to advantage make “arrangements” among themselves (just as individual men had done) for protection and other purposes. Thus the “state” or country came into existence. Each town gave up part of its “independence” _in return_ for help from other towns.

Thus “society” was formed and grew more and more complex. Of course, I have only sketched the process in a very general way, but the idea is there. The one point we have to consider is that no one of these arrangements or institutions—the family, town and state—would be possible _unless_ every member gave up part of his original freedom _in return_ for help from others. A _bargain_ has to be made. For instance, the different men and their families each made a bargain with the whole number to give up part of their freedom, time and energy to the band. _In return_ each was to receive his share of the freedom, time and energy the others had given to the band or town. Each man made a _bargain_ with the town. He owed the town something: the town owed him something.

That was the beginning of government, and that is the arrangement at the bottom of any government to this day. Every government (town, county, state or national) is just a bargain between the various individuals and all of them taken together. Each owes something to all: all owe something to each.

The point is, in each case, is this bargain a _fair_ one? Does the individual give up more than he receives in _return_?

In olden times the average individual did give up far more than he got in return. Often he didn’t get much besides protection against some other government. Yet for this he frequently had to give up _nearly all_ his freedom, time and energy. A few individuals gained control of the government and, though they might not contribute as much as the others, took most of what the others gave for the use of the whole number, calling themselves kings, or dukes or emperors. The mass of the people forgot that originally the “government” meant _all_ the people. They came to consider the few who had gained control of the government as _the government itself_. That is, they let themselves be cheated out of their share in it.

Our Declaration of Independence was one of the things that resulted when, after centuries of misrule and suffering, the mass of the people began to wake up to the fact that they had been cheated all that time under a bargain which had originally been fair. They had been giving more than they got in return.

In an absolutely fair government every individual would receive just as much as he gave and give just as much as he received. A modern government is so vast and so complex that it would be hard to measure each man’s share exactly, but the nearer any government comes to that, the better and fairer it is. England, for example, comes nearer to that ideal than does Russia; Russia nearer than Afghanistan.

The chief trouble in Russia is that the mass of the people have to give more than they receive. A comparative few have gained possession of the government and each takes a very, very large share of what _all_ contribute, leaving almost no share at all for the majority.

Of course it is almost impossible to trace out just what each Russian peasant gives up to the government, and what he receives in return. Without a government of some kind he could not produce or hold anything except by force against his fellows—land, goods, money, family, all would be _totally_ insecure. As it is, he does get _some_ security in these respects. In return he gives practically _all_ his freedom, time and energy. On the other hand, a Grand Duke may give up to his country hardly any freedom, time and energy, and yet be rolling in wealth. Something is wrong. It is not a fair bargain. It is not a good government.

How about _our_ government? Is it a fair bargain?

Modern civilization is very complex. No two men can really give just the same amount to the common country, since all men differ in ability. But the country asks only certain things from its individuals. To be fair the point is to _ask the same from all_. The country gives only certain things to its individuals: the point is to _give the same to all_. Our country doesn’t demand military service in time of peace, as do many other countries. And, in _return_, it doesn’t give us a tremendous standing army. If it _did_ demand military service, to be fair it would have to make the demand equally of _all_ able to bear arms. If it _did_ give us a big standing army, to be fair it would have to use this army to protect us _all_ equally.

If our country taxes certain goods, it must tax them everywhere—not for one man and not for the next. If there is a tax of one cent on every bale of a certain commodity, each man should pay one cent for every bale he owns. If there is a tax of one cent on every dollar, each man should pay one cent for every dollar he owns.

Is this the case in the United States?

If the Government gives certain privileges to a few men, it should give the same to all. Is this always done in our country?

Of course all may not always want a certain privilege. It is open to all, but only a few use it. Is this all that is required of the Government? Or, since the Government has nevertheless given some of the general fund to only a few, should these few make some adequate _return_ for what they have used from the common property? Is this always done in our country?

Ask yourself similar questions about every case that comes up. What I have said doesn’t pretend to “explain politics,” but it ought to give everyone a test or basis to refer everything back to. Ask yourself whether any law or custom is a _fair bargain_. You can tell well enough when you deal with the grocer or the milkman whether you are getting a fair bargain. Try to in these other matters.

But to come back to why women should take an interest in politics. One reason has been suggested—that her daily bread is affected by them. Another has been hinted at—that it is partly your fault that politics as practiced in this country are corrupt (definition No. 2). Since we are to devote the next number of our Department to this same question, we will do little now in this issue except suggest reasons and ask questions. I’m not going to do all the expressing of opinion just because I happen to have the chance all to myself this month. By next month I hope there will be letters and opinions from a great many of you.

In some parts of our country women can vote and it is likely that some day they will do so everywhere. When the country or state gives her the right to vote does that put her under any obligation to do or give anything in return for this privilege?

Who gives women (or men) the right to vote—the city, state or country?

Is it fair to give it to some women and not to all? Is it fair to give it to men and not to women?

Would politics be purer if women took more interest in them? If women voted?