(13) By so doing she not only will prevent the evils which have arisen from the wife’s economic dependence on her husband, but she will develop her human faculties. For what we do modifies us more than what is done for us. The fifth, sixth, and seventh propositions are those on which the whole argument hinges. Mrs. Stetson’s energy of expression and her contempt for convention have deservedly secured for her a re-consideration of old problems thus presented in a new form. The ability with which she supports her conclusions is obvious. Her logic needs more careful examination. Her first argument I dismiss as quite irrelevant. Granted that at least some men support their female kind, and that no brutes do, nothing follows. I trust that there are many thousand characteristics which may be predicated of man which must be denied of brutes. Granted also her next argument, that what the wife obtains from her husband bears no relation to her power to produce wealth, or to her services in the house, or to her motherhood. Marriage, as Mrs. Stetson maintains, should not be a business transaction, and therefore the less commercial the relations of husband and wife to each other, the less will service on one side be balanced against service on the other side. The basis is the reverse of the economic basis; the honest business man tries to get the largest amount for himself obtainable without cheating his co-bargainer, trusting to the latter to guard his own interests, and to see that what he gets is worth to him what he gives for it. In any normal marriage the desire on each side is to secure to the other the greatest amount of good at a reasonable cost to themselves, the difference between persons determining more than anything else what they consider a reasonable cost. Stepniak, in a struggle with the English language, once gave a very happy definition, which most practical people would accept. “Marriage,” he said, “is to love and put up with.” Now these are just the two acts that no one expects from the parties to a commercial contract. I therefore grant Mrs. Stetson’s second argument, and put it aside, as being, like the previous one, beside the question.