The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-05-30
A MIXED CASE.

A MiAED CAsE.
 Bible readers, and we hope that ern- braces most of The Advertisers pat rons. remember the original and eff fective manner by which King Solo, mon decided the dispute between the two women as to which the baby should be given. A person less exalt- ed would not have dared resort to such an expedient as he did. but Solomon was largely a law unto himself and could do pretty much as he pleased. Whether he would have allowed the baby cut in halves and divided be- tween the two claimants if neither had objected is q question that no one can answer. but his wisdom taught him that the real mother would protest against such brutal method of set- tling the point. and the result proved him correct.
 We have been reminded of this old incident by reading of case now wor- rying the courts up North. Perhaps some of our readers may call to mind the incubator baby" that was talked of during the Worlds Fair at St. Louis. where a prematurely born baby was placed in an incubator and successful ly brought up from it's imperfect stage. ''In the beginning says The Boston Globe. the child was taken from its mother and given to the incubator company of the Worlds Fair. After. ward a rich woman adopted the baby. and held 1t until the real mother sought to regain 1t. As the matter now stands. four courts have rendered decisions in the matter. An Illinois Circuit Court decided in favor of the real mother, and the Illinois Supreme Court decided against her. while a Kansas District Court decided against her and the Kansas Supreme Court in her favor.
 The woman who adopted the baby has spent $5o.0oo, while the real moth CT, a poor woman. has spent all she had. The U. s. Court of Appeals at Minneapolis will soon decide the case"
 Most people, we, suspect. will decide that the real mother should have the child but naturally there are legal complications in such case as this. If the rich woman adopted the child in the manner prescribed by law, 1t is evident that some of the courts hold that her claims are superior to those of the actual mother. while 1t Is equal ly plain that some of the courts hold the claims of motherhood superior to all others, and we repeat that most mothers at least will entertain the same opinion.
 While it is true that there is no dispute as to the maternity of the child in this case. and while it is also true that Solomon's drastic method of set- ting the dispute cannot be adopted. there are still doubt as to which of the claimants will win. In this, as in many other matters. money talks" and 1t may be that the rich woman will be suffered to keep the strangely nursed baby, but we cannot help be- lieving that if 1t is legally permissi- ble the courts should give the child to its real mother. It is possible. we freely admit, that the child itself might be better off with the woman who adopted it than with the one who gave it birth. It, of course. cannot know its parent and to it the only mother will be the one who has cared for it so long. and who is able and apparently willing to provide for it's every want in life. And yet-the mother wants and yearns for her. baby. Should she not have it?