primarily for profit it could of course never have flourished unless
there had been a dearth of these discouraged girls. Is it not also
significant that the surviving representatives of the girls who formerly
supplied the demand are drawn most largely from the one occupation which
is farthest from the modern ideal of social freedom and self-direction?
Domestic service represents, in the modern world, more nearly than any
other of the gainful occupations open to women, the ancient labor
conditions under which woman's standard of chastity was developed and
for so long maintained. It would seem obvious that both the girl
over-restrained at home, as well as the girl in domestic service, had
been too much withdrawn from the healthy influence of public opinion,
and it is at least significant that domestic control has so broken down
that the girls most completely under its rule are shown to be those in
the greatest danger. Such a statement undoubtedly needs the modification
that the girls in domestic service are frequently those who are
unadapted to skilled labor and are least capable of taking care of
themselves, yet the fact remains that they are belated morally as well
as industrially. As they have missed the industrial discipline that
comes from regular hours of systematized work, so they have missed the
moral training of group solidarity, the ideals and restraints which the
friendships and companionships of other working girls would have brought
them.

When the judgment of her peers becomes not less firm but more kindly,
the self-supporting girl will have a safeguard and restraint many times
more effective than the individual control which has become so
inadequate, or the family discipline that, with the best intentions in
the world, cannot cope with existing social conditions.

The most perplexing case that comes before the philanthropic