Perhaps one of the most characteristic advances of the century at its close was the recognition among womanhood of duties of a nature till then unacknowledged save by a few, who had made no disciples. There had always been many, to the praise of womanhood be it said, who had been foremost in almsgiving and aid to the needy; indeed, the personal calls of charity had been left almost entirely in the hands of woman as the traditional and natural dispenser of alms. But it was not until the latter days of our civilization, as we now know it, that women became publicly and recognizedly the leaders in the great charitable movements; it was even not until that time that women, in individual guise, became known as philanthropists. Especially is the fact of a rich woman, such as Miss Helen Gould, being prominently identified with benevolent work a product of our own time. There may have been in the past many who gave, and that liberally, but they did not identify themselves and their lives with their charities; they did not give themselves as well as their money. It is less the pecuniary generosity of Miss Gould to worthy objects than her personal identification therewith, her gift of part of her life to such objects, that is worthy of commemoration; and in her way she stands a type of the later American woman. When she gave the munificent sum of one hundred thousand dollars--but a portion of her total contribution--to the work of the hospital service at the beginning of the war with Spain, she did something, yet hardly achieved rivalry with a certain widow of Scriptural fame; but when, at Camp Wikoff, she nursed with her own hands the sick soldiers of her country she brought to her gift of money the far finer gift of her own personality, and thus added to the former in infinite degree. It is well for our country that we can claim that such as she are but types.