[Chairman Massachusetts Commission on the Dependent Children of
Widowed Mothers.]
Cambridge.
* * * * *
I have read Professor Foerster’s letter with much interest. His last
sentence: “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,” a clear-cut statement
of the possible reason for my criticism of the Massachusetts report,
is not wholly accurate. The agitation for widows’ pensions has
caught so large a measure of popular support that we begin to think
that every person must be for pensions, against pensions, or on
the fence ready to jump to one side or the other. Such a choice of
alternatives has little attraction for any one who approaches the
question out of thoughtful experience with relief problems and the
long struggle to procure for the widow and others who live in misery
adequate reinforcements—reinforcements of income, health, recreation,
education for children and decent living conditions.
Those who have been most concerned to do justice to the widow with
children have seen most clearly the failure of our relief measures.
The indictment which they have brought again and again has rehearsed
the fact of our failure which is suggested anew by the Massachusetts
report.
But an indictment is not a remedy. The evidence behind it is not
even valid always in the search for a remedy. What we need to
know now is why have public and private relief failed. Professor
Foerster mentions several statements of mine which do not seem to
him successful arguments against widows’ pensions. I am not arguing
against widows’ pensions. I merely recognize many considerations
growing out of ten years’ experience in social work which make me
both dissatisfied with what we are doing and suggest the need for the
most careful study before we can be sure of a remedy.
I realize that many people grow impatient when the question of
widows’ pensions is related to the problem of relief. Perhaps the
movement, as some people hope, will be the entering wedge of a
system of state endowment of motherhood. We cannot wisely, however,
begin experiments for the sake of their expected future value with
a total disregard of their certain present effect. Widows’ pensions
as projected by the commission would be in fact a relief problem.
The responsibility of the public outdoor relief machinery for their
administration as proposed by the commission’s bill would indicate
this even if there were no other indications, which there are.
I have found the Massachusetts report of the greatest interest, but
in my judgment it does not justify widows’ pensions. The figures
and the expressions of opinion secured from various agencies are
significant. They are significant of the need for a deeper probe,
however, not for an extension of an unsatisfactory system of relief.
A recommendation that this deeper probe be undertaken is the one
recommendation to which it logically leads.
It is because states which regard Massachusetts precedents with
respect are likely to consider this report as the long-needed
scientific and comprehensive study of the status of outdoor relief
that I have tried to estimate it from this point of view.
The commonwealth of Massachusetts gave Professor Foerster and his
associates on the commission a tremendously difficult task and gave
them hopelessly inadequate facilities with which to perform it. Under
the circumstances, perhaps none of us could have done any better. But
Massachusetts should have done better.