Again, thinking how charitable institutions shield those who support
them, I must speak of a case which is similar to the one just described
in more than one detail. The only difference is in the fact that it
happened in another town, instead of in New York. I was present in the
office of the Institution when the woman was advised to accept a certain
amount of money and go to New York. The woman, after suffering hunger
and cold with her children for a long time finally accepted the most
shameful conditions ever imposed upon a woman, upon a mother. She was
compelled to give her children to the other woman. I was present when
the investigator, Mrs. G., herself a mother of children, explained to
the woman that it would be best to accept five hundred dollars and give
her children up.
"You will not bring them up as well as they will. They have money, and
if you really love your children, sacrifice yourself for them." That was
the substance of her argument, and when the woman cried and pointed out
that she had another child coming from this unnatural father, the
investigator insulted her most grossly, calling her a prostitute. In
the end she advised her to keep it secret, because if the other woman,
the new Mrs. Schneider, heard about it, heard that the man had not
ceased his relations with his wife, she might "get sore on the whole
thing," and though the woman had a good case of adultery and bigamy
against her husband the Institution--so active in other emergencies,
such as strikes, when they send out scabs--did not do the slightest
thing to help the woman to get justice. She was destitute, a foreigner
and was helpless alone. She haunted her husband's place of business, a
restaurant, from where she was ejected by the ever-obliging policeman on
the corner.
To quiet things the husband disappeared for a few weeks. The restaurant
was running on the second woman's name. This legal nicety closed the
doors to the poor mother.
Driven to desperation by the hunger of her children she sent them to the
other woman a few times to ask for food. This was given to them, but not
a morsel was sent to the mother. Meanwhile, the charities remained
absolutely inactive. They even refused to pay the fare of the mother and
children back to New York, on the ground that she could not say _how_
she would live there. Not a penny was given. "Accept the five hundred
dollars," was their advice.
After a time she was trapped with a man in a hotel, and arrest for
adultery hanging over her head like the sword of Damocles, the woman
agreed to sign papers releasing the husband from any responsibility, was
given a few dollars and a ticket to New York, and all ended here to the
glory of organised charity the world over.
Shall I say that the whole trapping affair was engineered by the husband
and the second woman? And yet I have suspicions of "another party" who
helped. I am very anxious to find out whether, on the list of yearly
contributors, the "gentleman" in the case has not increased his yearly
gift to help the poor and needy and recognise the good offices of the
institution in his own case. And if it is not on the list, some one has
been privately favoured.