I thoroughly disagree with Porter R. Lee’s appraisal of the report of
the Massachusetts commission on the children of widows, and regret
that the report will be seen by only a part of your readers.[4]
Mr. Lee holds the commission’s conclusions to be of little value
because derived “in almost every case from inadequate data.” Yet he
adds later: “The report of the commission gives us much that suggests
the fact of our failure to provide adequately or helpfully for the
families of widows, a fact of which we had already become conscious.
What we need, however, is not so much evidence of the fact of failure
as a clear understanding of why we have failed.”
It might be honest to state that some of our figures are inaccurate
and yet not dishonest to recommend legislation. Wholly accurate
figures were never expected and not needed. The heads of the
leading charitable organizations met us in conference to determine
a method of investigation. The schedule method was recommended.
Before the schedules were printed they were approved by several of
these persons. Criticism began to appear when it seemed likely that
legislation would be recommended. In June the appropriation could
still have been saved. It was not saved because useful results were
expected.
How inaccurate are the results? Mr. Tilley is cited as saying that
a re-examination of one hundred cases disclosed “facts ... totally
at variance with the reports.” Half of these records we already
had discredited. Some cases resulted in reports closely like our
own, sometimes lower, sometimes higher. The re-examination was in
December, months after the first study. How absurd it is to suppose
that the results would not be different! Everybody knows that the
earnings of the poor fluctuate. Usually the overseers of the poor
give special aid in winter. A page of our report explains Mr.
Tilley’s one hundred cases; he makes only a blanket statement.
But again, how inaccurate are the results? The recommendations of our
Minimum Wage Commission were accepted when it showed that $6 or $7 a
week was the typical sum earned by an adult woman with a family which
had also an adult male worker. Many such women received charity in
addition. All of our widows received charity. From charity and wages
together, our figures showed that they typically received $6 or $7 a
week when there was not also an adult male worker and when several
children had to be supported. It is not possible that our figures
were so far wrong that these families were better off than the former
group. And if they were so far wrong—what an indictment that would be
of the accounting of the public and private charitable officers of
Massachusetts!
No, the figures do not err so far. Our charities constantly protest
that they have insufficient funds. Before me lies a circular of the
Associated Charities of a city of 100,000 people, which has many
well-to-do persons and few recent foreigners. The resources “to
meet the needs of families in distress are wholly inadequate, as
is well known to all familiar with the conditions.... We still use
existing resources to the utmost.... Still we fall far short of being
able to meet the demands upon us. Must we allow widows with young
children to be overburdened and underfed,” etc? Are such stories
untrue? Of course not! Most communities in Massachusetts have a
poorer population and a weaker organized charity for dealing with the
problem.
But, further, our opponents suggest an alternative bill, providing
for “adequate” aid for all mothers with dependent children.
If existing relief is adequate, this bill is a sham. The only
alternative is to regard these opponents as agreeing that existing
relief is inadequate.
The Legislature that gave us $1,000 hardly expected a wealth of
figures. Mr. Lee does not in other matters rely on figures, I am
happy to observe. “During recent years,” he says, “our enlarging
conceptions of social treatment [not our figures—they are impotent]
have condemned utterly much of our supposedly efficient work in
family and individual reconstruction.” And for widows he grants:
“There is a widespread conviction of sin in this matter and an
earnest searching for the remedy.”
Our analogy (with its implications) of widowhood through industrial
accident and through disease, Mr. Lee mistakenly, I believe, regards
as disproved by ourselves. For, he says, we reject the principle of
payment by way of indemnity for loss. We reject it as a determining
principle; another principle is more fundamental. Workmen’s
compensation measures, like sickness and old-age insurance, spring
fundamentally from a desire to establish or maintain the conditions
of efficient living. Nobody attempts really to measure the loss
through death by accident. It cannot be done.
But a man’s wages can be studied to learn his standard of living,
and then an expedient degree of comfort provided. The Washington
act does not even relate the award to the dead man’s wages. Usually
the award increases with the number of children. German statutes
have all had the comfort of the survivors in view. No abstract
desire to compensate for loss would ever secure legislation if, as
a consequence, the efficiency and comfort of the population were to
decrease.
Not only is Mr. Lee anxious to find whether relief is now adequate
or not, but he wants to know where the flaw in the service is.
Both questions are answered by our information as to the policies
of the child-helping and relief-giving agencies. He doubts whether
child-helping agencies are “competent witnesses” to the causes for
the removal of children. Are they likely then to remove children
for competent cause? Persons incompetent to discern the presence of
factors that make non-removal desirable will scarcely remove for
proper cause only. The letters of these agencies would repay reading.
What these letters say about local relief resources is more than
borne out by the reports of policy contained in the letters from the
overseers. Most widows are in their hands. Our schedules, further,
show that actually $2 to $2.50 a week per family is usually given.
None of our critics attack these statements. There is a problem and
present agents do not cope with it.
Suppose we had sent into the field experts to find out whether relief
is adequate. We should again face the issue of standards. Responsible
persons have not accepted Mr. Carstens’ interpretation of the Chicago
plan. One of the visitors of the State Board of Charity whom Mr.
Tilley sent to verify records reported one case: “Widow for nine
months. Four children, fourteen to seven years.... Complains of work
being slack and has not had a full week’s wages for a long time....
Is terribly overworked; there seems to be nothing but skin and bone
to her. The standing on her feet all day in the shop is what kills
her.... _Could stand a little more aid until the combined earnings
of herself and daughter show a little increase._” A little more aid!
Just how much more will be differently fixed by different people.
Most widows’ families in Massachusetts are not within sight of Mrs.
More’s and Mr. Chapin’s standards.
The conclusion remains that the overseers and many child societies
are not working well. We have a thousand overseers, elected for short
terms, and receiving little or no pay. Often they serve also in other
capacities and carry on private affairs. If ordered by an expert
commission to make specified payments to widows fit to bring up their
children they might apply the standard to other cases. The commission
would select its widows. Mr. Lee wholly misrepresents our intention
when he notes “incidentally that the cause of a husband’s death is
not always a satisfactory test of a wife’s moral habits.”
Mr. Lee objects that we offer nothing for the children of disabled
fathers, etc. If a third of the charity problem—widows—were to come
under the care of a new commission, that commission would be able
to work out its specialized technique. Later, we might know better
what to do about desertion and other problems. Meanwhile existing
charities, having a lighter load, could deal better with their
remaining cases.
Then as to our use of the word “worthy.” It is old-fashioned, but
convenient. No person works long in charities who acts on the notion
that one person is actually as good as another—else it would be folly
to try to make a person better! Mr. Lee supposes us to regard the
children of the disabled and similar groups as “unworthy.” Where such
an implication is even suggested I cannot discover.
In conclusion, I suppose that Mr. Lee and I differ fundamentally in
our approval of a proposed method of dealing with widows, and that
his criticism is derived from his point of view.