There is, in this country, a foolish prejudice against the term "Servant." Why? What is the true meaning of the word? A slave? No. An inferior? Not necessarily. The definiton is very simple : " One who serves or labors for another." What is there degrading in that ? Every one is, or should be, laboring for or serving others. That there are different degrees of servitude, no one will deny. The rank or position of each one who serves must depend largely on the ability of the servitor, and the quality or character of the work he offers to his employer. The President is the " servant " of the people ; the lawyer, of his client; the physician, of his patient; the clergyman, of his church and congregation; the mechanic, of those needing his special services; the laboring man, of the farmer; and the cook, of the mistress of the house. Each receives compensation in accordance with the importance of the services rendered, and the terms mutually agreed on.

This is true in every profession, in all business, from the highest to the lowest. In every department there are certain stipulations to be accepted before service is rendered, and each party, employer, as well as employee, is bound to fullfil his part of the contract - the lawyer who demands and receives his fifty thousand dollar fee, as much as the cook in the kitchen, who has such wages as she herself demands; not such as her mistress may be pleased to give. One is just as much the servant of the employer as the other, differing in degree and honors, according to the market value of the skill or talent they are able to bring to the market, and in nowise controlled by the caprice of the employer. If this is a correct rendering of the term "servant," we fail to see any degradation in it. It is a more convenient, and, to our thinking, a more respectable term, than "Do-mestic " or "Help." It may have just as much honor in it as those to whom it is applied please to secure for it by their own acts; and with this explanation of our rendering of that word, we propose to say