Los Angeles herald., 1907-04-14
OBJECT LESSON FOR PARENTS S

There are texts for many homilies in
the record of that notorious murder
trial in New York. One feature of the
revelations, however, especially i'm
presses the mind Of every thoughtful
reader of the current reports of the case.
That is the disclosure of the awful re-
sponsibility of the mother of the young
wife for the latter's early waywardness
and ultimate ruin.
According to evidence adduced in the
| trial and also the excoriation of the
mother by the advocate for the defense,
that mother was accountable primarily
for her daughters downfall. Early
death of the child's father threw the
entire weight of parental care upon
the mother. Neglect Of proper exer-
else of the responsibility thus incurred
led to the lamentable result.
trial that the wife of the prisoner, in
her childhood years, was practically
without moral training. In her own
testimony she stated that she never
had attended a Sunday school, and
church services were almost unknown
to her. But worst of all was the evil
dence that the mothers chief concern
was the utilizing of her child's fatal
gift Of beauty in earning money for
the mothers use. An artists model
first, then chorus girl.
Never has there been a more impress
sive lesson bearing on the subject of
moral training by parents than is found
in the early history of the young wo-
that should be indelibly stamped upon
the mind of every parent, and particu-
larly that of every mother in the land.
1t emphasizes the scriptural admoni-
tion, "Train up child in the way he
should go and when he is old he will
not depart from it,"
But a double lesson in parental re-
sponsibility Is presented in the record
of that notorious trial, showing similar
results from widely different circum-
stances. The young woman in ques-
tion was reared in poverty, her young
husband in the lap of luxury. The
former was tempted to early wayward-
ness by penury, while the latter pur-
sued that path with pockets full of
money instead Of being subjected to the
rule, "spare the rod and you spoil the
child.'
If there is any difference in the culpa-
bility of the parents in these two cases,
where lies the greater blame? The
question is not easily answered. where
much is given much is required" The
mother Of the young woman, pressed
by poverty, sought to utilize the beauty
gift of her child, possibly not recognize
ing the peril ahead. 1t would be
stretching the mantle of charity to as
sumo that she failed to perceive the
peril, and the testimony in the case
indicates that she made no scrutiny in
that direction.
But there is not apparent even the
shadow of excuse for the lack of pa
ternal guidance and restraint in the
case of the young man. He seems to
have been reared like the majority of
scions of multimillionaires, with abun-
dant money at command and a single
incentive to crafty perverted inelina-
tions.
The moral presented to American
parents by the lives of these two young
people needs no elucidation. The story
Of the trial is a glaring warning to
all fathers and mothers to be ever
vigilant in watching the moral ten
dencies Of their children ana In laying
the foundation for lives OF respectable
ity and usefulness.