1. _Luxury, while variously defined, involves always the thought of great consumption of wealth for unessential pleasures._ It is not possible to define luxury absolutely; it is a relative term. Those opposed to it condemn it in their definition of it, as, for example: "an excessive consumption of wealth," or "devoting a relatively large amount of wealth to the satisfaction of a relatively superfluous want." Those who take a more moderate and favorable view say: "It is the enjoyment of forms of wealth not obtainable by the mass of men." The difficulty in the definition as well as in the problem of luxury is that it involves a mixture of economic and of ethical questions. [Sidenote: Extravagance "to give employment"] 2. _Luxury is erroneously justified by some as giving employment to labor._ Typical instances are extravagant dress and elaborate balls where fine and costly flowers, decorations, music, coaches, require the expenditure of a large amount of money. It is said of the Empress Eugenie, wife of Napoleon III, that, in order to help the glove industry of France, she wore no pair of gloves more than once; in order to help other French industries, she purchased many silks and laces. It is a very comfortable doctrine to some people that the oftener they change their dress, the greater benefactors to society they are. A few years ago the "Bradley-Martin ball" was given in New York city. It was possibly little more elaborate and expensive than many another ball, but it chanced to be a dull time for news and the papers all over the land gave columns to its discussion. In the many interviews with ministers and business men, the thought appeared over and over that the ball had at least the merit of giving employment to labor. [Sidenote: The fallacy of luxury]