struse or knotty point arises, it sends for a lawyer and deducts the amount of his bill from the beneficiary's income.

In my experience the vast majority of individual trustees are honest, and the instances of their absconding, if we take number and opportunities as a measure, comparatively rare. They are scrupulous in the performance of their duties, and, now that inheritance and income taxes have complicated the situation, their bed is not always one of roses. I have no wish to underrate their responsibilities or minimize their virtues by asking why woman should not enter into competition with them, and why woman is not better adapted for this employment than for certain others where she aspires to shine. To me her chief stumbling-block would seem to be that she has made a bogy of property.

Every fresh batch of candidates for the bar shows, I believe, an increasing percentage of women. They still seem lost in the multitude of male practitioners, and it is too early yet to draw more than the single deduction that, Portia to the contrary notwithstanding, they are at a disadvantage in forensics. Women speak admirably, sometimes quite as well as men, before committees and on formal occasions; but in the hurly-burly and give and take of court practice they are outclassed by their own nicety, the abandonment of which makes them appear either shrewish or strident. Conspicuous laurels in arguing questions of pure law before courts of last resort are still to be won. Their professional activities for the most part are confined to quasi office work, the collection of claims,—often forlorn hopes, the redress of minor grievances, and the preparation of probate papers-matters that require integrity, patience, tact, and love of detail, all of them qualities essential to the care of property. Women have the reputation of being honester than men, but whether this is due to previous lack of opportunity only time will show. When it comes to patience, tact, and love of detail they should compare favorably with the average male competitor.

The old-fashioned trustee resembled a czar. Because clothed with the legal title to the property in his charge, he was apt

to conduct himself as though it were really his, and beneficiaries could not afford to ask him many questions unless they would be snubbed. The courts abetted him somewhat in maintaining this attitude of "none of your business." The modern trustee is a much more approachable person, for the law, imbued with the "new freedom," no longer countenances the policy of keeping the real owners at arm's length. But, though suave, he is constantly on guard against the importunities of those entitled to the income which he collects, most of whom are women whose patrimony has been tied up for life. Perplexed as they often are why property does not yield a larger return, or why he feels constrained to add this or that increment to capital instead of paying it to them, many women hanker to catechize the trustee-ask a string of questions no matter how foolish. This is difficult when the listener is a man; they shrink into their shells in a presence which, however kindly, is from force of habit condescending. If they had a woman to deal with, they would regard a heart-to-heart talk-encouragement to ask indiscriminate questions-as an essential of satisfactory service. Is it too much to allege that most female beneficiaries would rather have their interests safeguarded by a woman than a man except for a single consideration-the fear of her not proving equal to the responsibility? Or that many women propertyowners would elect to manage their own affairs or to hand them over to some congenial person of the same sex but for this dread of lack of equipment?

Woman seems to be constitutionally gun-shy when confronted with mortgages, stocks, and bonds; she sheers off as if afraid of being hit and manifests a like tendency to become panic-sticken or obfuscated over rates of interest or the distinctions between capital and income. She has no fear of money in the bank so long as she does not overdraw her accounts, but becomes dazed with apprehension when any question of investment is broached and is apt to murmur: "I leave it all to you." This is explicable enough on the theory that her mind has been a blank on these subjects for centuries, but far from flattering to her

intelligence if inherent difficulties be the test. The ability to make two blades of grass grow where only one grew before approximates genius in the constructive type of modern financier, but that demanded of the successful custodian of property need not rise above the level of normal wisdom. This normal wisdom seems beyond feminine attainment largely because of the outlook which it presupposes. At a time when she was being grounded in needlework and household handiness her brother was already listening in the smoking-room to the small talk of his elders concerning the rise and fall of securities. But it is no tax on the intellectual faculties to acquire a speaking acquaintance with the railroads and manufacturing companies of one's habitat. Any woman worth her salt who gave her mind to it ought to find the study and comparison of statistics which would enable her to discriminate between investments no more difficult than algebra. The good judgment, alias the normal wisdom, of the male trustee is derived from the analysis of reports, the weighing of probabilities, and the nosing out of inside information. From these he reads the signs of the times, and if he reads them correctly he prospers. But there is nothing in the vocation which should bid a woman quail unless it were that masculine freemasonry should combine to frustrate her when she tried to ascertain the truth in advance-an odious improbability. The primary rules of the game, which seems so terrifying at the outset, are almost as easy as the alphabet: that a return of four to five per cent spell safety and any more than this involves a speculative risk which it is sometimes prudent and far oftener not to take; that a mortgage and a bond, however formidable to look at, are severally nothing but interest-bearing promises to pay secured by collateral, the first by land, the second by the property of the corporation which issues it; and that stock certificates are merely shares in a corporate partnership entitled to dividends after the coupons on the bonds and other fixed charges have been met.

A few months' study, supplemented by a little practical experience, would enable any reasonably intelligent woman to master these and other elementary technical

ities and so to cease to think of them as bugaboos. Thus equipped she would no longer be handicapped by her inveterate and once-cherished disability of being unable to comprehend the language of the money-changers. With this removed, and provided she kept in mind that the admonition, "Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings," is even more applicable to her because of a certain scatter-brain, atavistic tendency, she ought not to be at a disadvantage in the arena of competition on the score of ignorance. Her progress would be gradual, but the reactionaries of her own sex reluctant to employ her would presently be outnumbered by those ready to reward her zeal and winsome amiability. She would not be so apt to be grouchy or dictatorial as men. And yet the ultimate test of the rivalry-the criterion of her fitness-must be the quality of her brain cells, for the prudent and discerning care of property rights is in the end a serious intellectual process.

Is there a congenital kink in woman's cranium which would interfere with her success as a custodian of property or fiduciary? Let me illustrate by an objectlesson which, though gleaned from fiction, was widely recognized as veracious on its appearance, nearly twenty years ago, under the title of "The Woman and Her Bonds." The heroine of Edwin Lefèvre's short story was a widow with $38,000 to invest, and the hero (or victim) a stockbroker who had been her husband's intimate friend and was eager to do her a good turn. We make her acquaintance at his office eager to ascertain how she can get a larger income from her money than the trust company where it is deposited is allowing her. Mr. Colwell advises the purchase at 96 of 100 five-per-cent gold bonds of the Manhattan Electric Light, Heat & Power Company, in regard to which, as he tells her, he has inside information. She is to deposit with his firm as a wide margin all but $3,000 of her $38,000 and wait quietly until he shall market the bonds, as he confidently counts on doing at a ten-per-cent profit, which would add a handsome slice to her capital. He tells her besides that he has bought some of the bonds for his own mother, and that she can always find them

quoted on the financial page of the newspapers.

Mrs. Hunt departs, but returns anxiously three days later to point out that Manhattan Electrics are selling at 95 instead of 96. She is assured that this signifies nothing and is urged not to worry. She goes away only to reappear in another week with a dejected air, for the bonds have fallen to 93. When, in response to her remark that according to a friend she has lost $3,000 by the transaction, Mr. Colwell proposes to take her purchase off her hands for his own account at the original price and return all her money, she jumps at the offer. But it is not very long before the bonds are quoted at 95 again and then at 96. This prompts another visit by the widow to the broker's office.

"Mr. Colwell, you still have those bonds, haven't you?" "Why, yes."

"I-I think I'd like to take them back again."

"Certainly, Mrs. Hunt. I'll find out how much they are selling for."

The quotation telephoned proves to be 961⁄2, which, as the broker points out, is practically where they were when she had bought them originally.

Mrs. Hunt hesitates, and inquires: "Didn't you buy them from me at 93?"

Mr. Colwell explains that he had bought them from her at 96 and given her the full sum that she had paid.

She makes answer: "Well, I don't see why it is that I have to pay 961⁄2 now for the very same bonds I sold last Tuesday at 93. If it was some other bonds, I wouldn't mind so much," and though Mr. Colwell, knowing the plans of the syndicate, does his best to induce her to change her mind and to let him purchase them for her, she goes away obdurate and disgruntled.

The sequel is heartrending. Manhattan Electrics rise steadily, and when they are quoted at 106 back comes Mrs. Hunt.

"Good morning, Mr. Colwell; I came to find out exactly what you propose to do about my bonds."

Then, finding him mystified as to her meaning, she continues: "But never

mind. I have decided to accept your offer; I'll take those bonds at 962."

"But, Mrs. Hunt, you can't do that, you know. You wouldn't buy them when I wanted you to and I can't buy them for you now at 962. Really, you ought to see that."

The widow remains unable to see why she is not in the right, and makes her final exit in high dudgeon, threatening to consult a lawyer.

Compression has obliged me to omit the fine shades of the entertaining story, but the mental obliquity it suggests is obvious enough. No one except a woman could possibly see the matter in that light except now and then a clergyman. I remember some years ago being asked by a member of that profession to take a trustee to task for imposing on a poor woman. On the day appointed for the investigation it appeared that the fiduciary had received from the testator ten bonds of a construction company yielding eight per cent, which the complainant himself hastened to characterize as a “mortgage on a lot of rotten old cars." These had been sold at par and the proceeds prudently invested. When, puzzled, I inquired what the imposition was, the clergyman promptly answered: "Don't you see? She used to receive eight hundred dollars yearly and now she only gets six."

"But," I urged, "the former investment was hazardous, as you admit. What can the trustee do?" And then came the extraordinary assertion, yet made in good faith: "He ought to pay her the difference out of his own pocket."

I was unable, though I labored hard, to make this clergyman see it otherwise.

While these examples certainly suggest a kink in the brain, they scarcely furnish grounds for deeming it organic rather than functional-or, in other words, incurable. On the contrary, the assumption is much more credible that the obliquity they indicate is due to a lack of experience and worldly wisdom which has, as it were, atrophied certain ordinary mental processes. Common sense, to say nothing of a sense of justice, is largely a matter of background and is hardly to be expected of one traditionally banished from any specific field of inquiry. There is no one more shrewd in bargaining than the wo

man of continental Europe who sells vegetables and posies, and this is simply because she is schooled to give her whole mind to her trade. Much the same set of faculties is exercised by the successful guardian of property as by the successful huckster. It is simply a question of sufficient attention and interest. With these assured, the kink which produced the ethical vagaries of "the woman and her bonds" would speedily desert the cranium of any woman who for self-support or selfprotection essayed to master the rudiments of financial knowledge. It would not be long before she would be able to think in terms of principal and interest or stocks and bonds almost as subconsciously as she appraises foulards and bombazines.

It will be argued by some that sophistication in money matters would render women sordid and thereby imperil the attribute we call charm. The less liberal men are in their views concerning feminine freedom, the more likely are they to be awake nights wrestling with this particular dread-the exodus of fascination. I am not suggesting that all women should become adepts in finance but that systematic training in the care of property would open to a group of women a breadwinning occupation where they would shine eventually to better advantage than in some other quasi-masculine callings, and that a little resolute familiarity with its everyday symbols would add materially to the self-respect and convenience of woman at large. While amateurishness would be the bane of those with professional aims, partnership in the modicum of business knowledge possessed by all educated men would render innumerable women in the larger class far more independent and level-headed. So far as sordidness is concerned, it used to be admitted that the

helpless sex yearned for money and delighted in its expenditure. If this be true, why should enlightenment as to its sources and how it is safeguarded mar this virgin tendency? On the contrary, it should serve to make women more ambitious to make their dollars go as far as they will.

There are, to be sure, especially in our day and generation, people to whom the mention of property is repugnant and to whom any association with it imports a lowering of spiritual tone. They would like to see the world get along without it, and pending that blessed day they are "eating the air on promise of supply." I remember that some years ago a reviewer dismissed a novel of mine with the solemn anathema: "This is a novel of property." It was the ultimate word. He was unconscious of cant, I dare say, but who can doubt that he would have been glad of my royalties or if some aged relative had died and left him a windfall? In spite of the leaven of the new freedom we still live in a practical age which continues to protect individual ownership by bank-accounts and strong boxes. Even Liberty bonds may be lost or stolen and should be sheered of coupons twice a year. Up to this time the custodians of property have been men. Women are perhaps honester than men. Let us dismiss a lingering doubt whether they have the same amount of brains, and assert boldly that there is no reason except inexperience why they should not manage their own business affairs and those of others to a greater extent than they do. They would be very pleasant to deal with; yet sex would be no protection against the loss of dollars by poor judgment. So I venture to repeat and italicize the homily: "Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings."

W

HEN the news of the severance of diplomatic relations between the United States and Germany came out in the newspapers on the streets of Paris, two designers of women's clothes were lolling over their afternoon cups in a Paris restaurant. One was a Frenchman. He was a well-known "creator" of a famous dressmaking house on the Rue de la Paix. The other was one of the foremost American designers, not well known or famous. They had paid a few francs for their tea and pasties and had given the waiter as much more for the privilege of sitting there, talking and watching the throng. The American sketched scratchily when some costume feature crossed his vision. The waiter brought them a copy of the "extra" that was being shouted under the windows. The Frenchman read the news soberly and without comment. He handed it to the American and watched his face.

"That means war between the United States and Germany," said the American designer.

"War, maybe. But what else?" The Frenchman's tone was a little impatient. He narrowed his eyes searchingly. The afternoon's talk between the two had not been centred upon war, but upon progress in the fashion world, designing in particular. He continued:

"Wake up! For heaven's sake, don't you see what this means to you? The opportunity for America. Don't you see? It means war, perhaps, but it means money. Money and more money for you. You folks are blind. I know what this means for us. Couturiers down to the bottom. Market shot to pieces. Work twice as hard after the war to pick it up. Or, if you fellows see a yard ahead of your nose, find ourselves after the

the unprecedented situation that now exists in America with respect to the business of making women's clothes. America has been the greatest rival of France for this industrial prestige for years, and New York the rival of Paris.

War conditions have forced the business of the importation of wearing-apparel from Paris to the United States almost to the wall. Therefore American designers have had to supply an industrial demand in the clothes line, covered by millions of dollars of good American money, with home-made products. A great American industry (clothes-manufacturers to-day calculate the value of products to be second to that of the steel business of the country) has a wide chance to make good and to make an international reputation.

In New York and Chicago, two principal centres of the trade, manufacturers are doing enormous businesses. The figures given out by the large producers of women's clothes are almost out of proportion in considering the country's per capita income and expenses, but these men have based their estimates upon the footings on their own and their neighbors' ledgers. One manufacturer said that the income from the cloak-and-suit trade in New York City for the last year amounted to $150,000,000. To one concern on Twenty-third Street he credited an annual business of $12,000,000. His estimate for the whole country for the sale of ready-made garments for women, including the products of tailors, dressmakers, bootmakers, hatters, was $2,500,000,000.

On such a fabulous basis as this, every woman in the country would spend about fifty dollars a year for her wearing apparel. This would be a mean allowance for many, but it would cover the annual expenses of two or three women who are roughing it on the plains, or anywhere in the back-country. So this manufacturer contended that the number of women who far exceed the fifty-dollar allowance is so