The practice of wise economies has been so success-ful and gratifying in one family of my acquaintance within the past few years that I must share some of the details with those interested.

The mother has succeeded in saving enough in four years to take herself and son on a European trip as a supplement to his education. The family live in the middle West and consist of three ladies and a boy of eighteen.

The mother writes: "I am almost ashamed to mention the small sum we live on. It is by saving all left-overs, and by the exercise of quite a little forethought and some self-denial that it is accomplished. I do not mean to practice economy at the expense of health, however." The daily average for each person for the year for good material was 12 2-5 cents one year, 86 4-5 cents a week, another, 85 1-6 cents.

A small garden, cared for on shares, aided somewhat, although not largely it supplied apples and pears in season and for preserving and a part of the summer vegetables and potatoes.

Sample menus with the hints accompanying them will be as suggestive as anything could be, to show the methods of economy.

On a basis of 85 to 90 cents per person a week:

Winter-Breakfast, 6:30 a. m.

Oatmeal with cream and sugar. Bread of Franklin mills and Pillsbury flours mixed.

Muffins or pancakes.

Butter.

Postum with 1-3 hot skimmed milk.

Jelly or fruit syrup

In summer various wheat cereals are used, as Ralston's Breakfast Food, Cream of Wheat and the like.

In the spring toast and eggs occasionally.

Dinner-12 m.

1. Stuffed beefs heart.

Stewed onions. Mashed potatoes.

Spiced pears.

Entire wheat bread and butter.

Gelatine dessert with whipped cream.

2. Remains of beef's heart warmed.

Creamed turnips.

Fried mashed potatoes. Green tomato pickles.

Rice with butter and sugar.

Not more than two hearts are served in a year. They are excellent for variety, but not desirable too often. A variety of meats and vegetables is given. In a three weeks' menu a chicken appears, serving two meals, roast pork, mutton chops, oysters, Hamburg steak, creamed dried beef, cod fish, salmon with white sauce, beef steak and boiled ham. The meat from soup bones is used in a pie or seasoned well and served on toast. Two turkeys are served in a season. A good roast once a month and steak or chops once a week.

Occasionally a bisque or other soup is served when the materials are at hand, but, as a rule, the soup course is omitted with meats, being reserved for days when fish or lighter courses are served.

There is never a spoonful of anything wasted. A cupful of corn left from one dinner is scalloped for the next. A little tomato may be added to it for a change. Spoonfuls of fruit left from suppers are made into dumplings for dessert. Pies are seldom served. Hickory nuts and dates are a favorite dessert. Tomatoes are home-canned. Lima beans are used occasionally as one vegetable.

When spring comes and eggs are plentiful omelettes are used, milk and egg puddings and custards.

Supper-5 p. m.

Bread and butter. Buns, cinnamon rolls, etc., cookies, gingersnaps or cake.

Fruit. Cheese.

Peanut butter or a little cold meat. Sometimes milk toast, warmed potatoes or macaroni.

If for guests, pressed veal, scalloped oysters with olives and jelly in addition.

A great variety of fruits is used. All varieties are preserved. In summer and fall fruit is a frequent dessert.

We are all more or less familiar with the enforced economies of life, but this is an example of voluntary curtailing for a larger good, without harm. Would that more homes could catch the spirit of this housekeeper who writes: "There are so many things I rather spend money for than for food!"

In a study of present standards of life as interpreted through facts in regard to food (Report of Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics, 1902) some things are emphasized which many housekeepers are ignoring, wilfully or otherwise, and which affect the cost of living seriously as well as the comfort and health of the family.

The data was gathered from homes in which the wage-earners were professional men. Wherever several maids were employed the increase in expense of food is disproportionately large. A family of three is instanced.

With three employes, cook, waitress and companion, with income of $3,400, 26.5 per cent is spent for food. In contrast, a family of the same size with $100 less income, that employs a nurse maid and one general helper, spends only 13.9 per cent for food. In the first case much of the ordering and preparation of the food is left to employes; in the latter the housekeeper attends to the ordering and plans the meals herself.

The menus submitted at that time show a surprising lack of variety and an ignorance of simple, inexpensive foods that can be used interchangeably. "Soups were very little used. Cheaper cuts of meat almost invariably took the form of stews. In no case were lentils or peas substituted for beans. Fish, which is one of the less expensive and most digestible foods, was used sparingly. Macaroni, spaghetti, rice, hominy and other cereals were almost never substituted for potatoes. The possibilities of cheese seemed quite unexplored. There was very little variety in vegetables in spite of the fact that in almost every case the families lived in large cities where the markets were bewil-deringly rich with a great variety."

These facts are but further evidence of the misconception in these days on the part of many, of the duties of the housekeeper. What greater duty can she have than looking after her share of the business engagement entered into when she assumed the responsibilities of a home and pledged herself to faithfulness in her part?

These duties are worthy of, yes, require, if properly attended to, the mental ability and intelligent care and interest of the trained, skillful women who assume them, and it is a pity that so many homes are being wrecked and others falling far short of their finest possibilities because of such neglect. I sometimes try to picture the outcry there would be if the wage-earners in our homes were equally lax in their responsibilities of providing! And yet, as I have tried to point out in the text, care in the consumption is as important in the home-finance as is providing, and the difference in comfort is greater, proportionately.

What is to start a great wave of pride over our land that shall stir every home-maker who is at present indifferent to, or ignorant of these great facts, with an ambition to prove her right to her position -and make her a worthy partner in her home-world, not a mere enjoyer of another's strenuous labor!

I know protest will at once arise in the form of such questions as "Where is the overworked home-maker to find time to do any more?" "What if the husbands prefer to hire help that their wives may have freer, happier lives?" "What can women do who haven't strength to assume such duties?"

If you ask, I must answer frankly, that the noble home-makers whom I look upon with unbounded respect, and whose homes and lives are a constant uplift to all who know them, never seem to have difficulty in adjusting these matters. Do we not all know, in reality, that time is ours, after all, to spend as we choose to spend it. We may have fallen into the poor method, have followed the way of all about us until it seems imperative to spend it all as we do, but if we looked at these matters as really serious we should find adjustment some way. Health and strength are so largely in our keeping, also! Confusion of too many outside interests, over excitement, lack of well-ordered, systematic living are depriving many a woman of the life rightfully hers. Lack of sufficient healthful exercise does the same for others. How few seem to understand it! At least the results would seem to indicate it.