DEAR MISS MANNERS: I attended a house party held in the home of an antiques dealer whose home was filled with magnificent furniture. In the distant past, a friend of mine and I talked often about how one must be taught to sit properly in any chair.

Well, as you would imagine, an oversized guest at this party sat indelicately on a small, expensive antique chair and broke one of the legs. The hostess was in another room. I heard and saw the crack because I was nearby. The chair was definitely seriously damaged.

Moments later, I left with another guest who gave me a ride home. I never told the hostess. Was I wrong? And, if I was supposed to tell the hostess, just how could I do that without embarrassing the awkward guest?

GENTLE READER: The hostess was going to find out whether you told her or not -- and was probably going to make her own assumptions about the culprit.

Miss Manners fears that the only reason to have told her would be to recuse yourself from blame. The guest who broke it should have confessed and offered to repair the damage. Perhaps he or she did; you left shortly after the crack. But not much good could come from your turning that person in.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I teach in a large high school, and two of my fellow teachers have now suffered the tragic loss of a family member. In one case, the father of my colleague did not have life insurance, and the cost of undertaking services fell on his shoulders. The staff took up a collection to which I was happy to contribute.

Then another teacher lost an unborn child very late in the pregnancy. Of course, my heart went out to this family. Again, we took up a collection to buy gift cards for things the family may need.

That family was deeply saddened, but in no financial crisis. In my day, we might collect for flowers or a tree that the family could plant in memory. If we were close to a family suffering a loss, we would take over a meal, so the gift cards may substitute for that meal.

We all were upset by the loss, but is a monetary gift appropriate? I am uncomfortable with this to the point that I don't want my personal losses shared in fear that any loss might be met with a financial gift. No amount of money can replace a loved one.

GENTLE READER: No, but people often don't know what to say or do when tragedy strikes, and the first colleague's financial situation gave the staff a specific purpose for their donations. Unfortunately, that set a precedent.

You could lead a movement away from automatic public solicitations, regardless of financial circumstances, by initiating a gift of food or flowers the next time tragedy strikes.

Miss Manners sincerely hopes that no one believes a financial reward is payment for grief -- even if wayward lawyers would often have you believe so.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Regarding etiquette in a car, what are the extent and limits of the driver's authority?

Does the driver decide where to go, as well as how to get there? Should he or she discuss each likely stop or detour? Should he or she yield to the passenger's wishes regarding stops or detours?

The attitude of the driver to the passenger seems to be like a bride's toward her attendants, though milder and potentially more consequential.

I've been on both sides of the console and have been shocked by my own unwillingness to consult the passenger about details of the trip that would certainly be discussed if we were on the train. There seems to be something special that arises when someone is "in the driver's seat" -- exacerbated, possibly, by the prevalence of solo commuters, whose car is their domain.

GENTLE READER: The phrase "in the driver's seat" is not commonly understood to mandate consultation -- or even basic compassion. This is unfortunate.

That the driver has the power, either figuratively or literally, to swerve into oncoming traffic does not, to Miss Manners' thinking, make doing so a good idea. The polite driver consults his guest's reasonable comfort, whether that means clearing errands that will lengthen the trip or submitting to bathroom stops without argument or comment.

This is true even if the driver is bestowing a favor. The rider may "only be along for the ride," but a driver's authority stops short of the point at which a ride home feels like a kidnapping.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What is an appropriate gift for second-year wives to give husbands? Just a card? Or should I get a special gift for him?

GENTLE READER: Is he special?

Miss Manners asks because you have had two years, plus courtship, to get to know the gentleman, and she has never had the privilege of meeting him. She therefore gently suggests that you are in a better position to know what would please him.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I've been an executive assistant for a while now in Washington, D.C. My first job was for a small Catholic university; the second, with a prominent nonprofit organization that relies heavily on donors.

When processing expense reports, I often see large receipts for cab rides, and this drives me nuts. It's not as if one can call getting to their normal work a "work expense." I think that I am mostly bothered by this because donors are paying for these petty expenses. Am I out of line?

GENTLE READER: Your desire that donors' money be well spent is admirable. But as you are not the boss, any attempt by you to unilaterally establish company policy is unlikely to be well-received.

Next time you are asked to process such an expense, Miss Manners recommends that you ask for a clear business policy to guide you. You will then be in a position to answer your own question.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In the light of rude comments made by political candidates under the guise of not being politically correct, could you please explain how to be polite without being politically correct?

GENTLE READER: Good question. As modern usage of the term "politically correct" has meant refraining from delivering wholesale insults to groups of people, that would be difficult.

The usual defense by those who express nastiness is that they are being frank and honest about what they think. As indeed they are. But that does not make their spoken opinions any less nasty.

When much of the public stopped tolerating hate talk, Miss Manners was thrilled. It became her favorite counter-example to those who believe that etiquette has steadily deteriorated since the days of King Arthur -- or at least their own vaguely remembered childhoods.

But now this tremendous advance is being threatened by both detractors and supporters of political correctness.

Those who scorn the term declare that political correctness is a danger to our constitutional right to free speech, which Miss Manners, like all Americans, holds sacred.

No, it is not. Surely you have noticed that lots of people are exercising their legal right to spew obnoxious thoughts, and there are no legal reprisals. Etiquette relies on voluntary compliance.

True, there are social reprisals. Those who seize their right to be offensive should not be shocked that others take offense.

But name-calling is not conducive to debate. All serious arenas of conflict -- legislatures, courtrooms, athletic contests -- have rules against this. That is necessary because holding opposing goals and debating actual issues require treating opponents with respect.

Yet even that has been perverted by some of the proponents of political correctness. An aggressive form of what calls itself sensitivity -- and yet attacks people for perceived slights when clearly none were intended -- is, itself, insensitive to the point of rudeness.

Miss Manners is particularly discouraged when such people try to extend the ban on bigotry to cover topics they might find upsetting, even for reasons of private experience. This would reduce meaningful discourse to universally approved issues, presuming that such things existed.

What these critics and proponents of political correctness have in common, besides an ugly presumption of ill-will in others, is an inability to imagine, much less strive for, a civilized society in which sincerely held differences can be safely aired.

The resulting confusion is that many people deplore political correctness when they only mean to declare that they support the principle of free speech and dislike arrogance disguised as sensitivity.

That blanket condemnation puts them in the position of defending cruelty, vulgarity and bigotry. So she suggests that everyone take a look at the content of what is said in the name of eschewing political correctness -- is it expressing something nasty? -- and judge political candidates accordingly.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I received a Valentine's Day card from a guy I like, but I don't know if I'm supposed to give him one, too. Should I? Does he expect one from me also?

GENTLE READER: When a gentleman sends a valentine, it is safe to assume that he expects to find out that his sentiment is reciprocated. Whether you do this with a card or a kiss, Miss Manners leaves up to you.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)