The Washington times., 1914-02-01
WOULD MAKE CITY
CH|LD'S PROTECTOR
Judge Neil Would Have Wash
ington Model in Movement
for Economic Safeguards,
By EDITH .LoBERT.

BY EDITH .LOBERT.
A aLAN to make washington the
~ first city to begin a worid-wide
n movement to feed and elot..s
poor children. not as a charity
but as an economic safeguard, IL pro-
posed by Judge Henry, Neil. of Chicago.
Judge Nell Is the man responsible.
more than any CHER, for the mothers
pension law which has eeen passed by
nineteen States. He has .devoted nis
NE 10 the cause OF cnildren. and has
gone from State to State and from cIty
q city enlisting people IN the night for
child welfare and child happiness.
he Is anxious to see Washington take
the initiative and declares that II the
Capital City were first 70 adopt this
throughout the civilized world.
First Of all wish to emphas.ze the
fact that IL Is not a charity" the 1udge
declared today. The proposition TO
feed, clothe and house the poor ehiIdrsa
OF the country Is merely one Of econ
omic protection. just as our compulsory
education system Is.
Millions For Education.
I'VE spend millions providing build
inss and teaches to educate our chill
dren. We do hot can that charity.
Not only do we provide the schools
for them but we require the children 10
attend We viii not let them stay
away. because. II they grow UP unedu-
Gated they win be a. menace 70 the
But there are other things necessary
to supplement the school work. There
are four Notwithstanding clothing,
housing. and schooling. II 10 shown
that 10 per cent OF the children attend
ing school in the cities are underfed.
without proper bodily nourishment they
cannot get much out OF the schoolA
1T is the underfed child which grows
up TO be menace to the state.
The present theory on this matter is
wrong. We neglect the children IN or
care for them. That Is, We punish the
child and he grows up to be an ire
sponsible parent, the same as his ORn
were. and the process Is repeated end
lessly. We are putting the cart before
the horse
1T is mockery to brag about our b's
commercial prosperity. the millions We
hold In bonds, II there are little chill
dren about US without enough to sa..
ana no good clothes to wear.
Does Not Reform Parents.
I'VE win all agree that proper care
should not be withheld from any de-
pendent child for the purpose Of re-
forming his parents, because n does not
ther degenerate them. and II would not
be right to ruin the child, even II Il did
reform the parents.
Judge Neil believes that to abolish
child-poverty will cure many Of the ms
Of humanity, but not ali. 1t win de-
- -
parents in the next generation
Withholding proper care from de-
pendent children for the purpose of re-
forming the Inefficient parents. he says.
ruins the children. who then become
inefficient parents in the next genera
ton.
''ChiId-poverty should be abolished" :"
he continued. because II Is a great
burden to the taxpayer to take ca g
of all the adults who have been rlilne,.
In childhood by poverty.
This Is not matter OF sentiment
but of practical economic statesman
ship.
I'VE have praeticaH- abolished nit
eracy at public expense by our public
school system, and W. are all proud OF
this system, which does not ask IL the
child's parents are good. but eompels
child's parents are ve=y bad-not out OF
sentiment, but because we hnd q
cheaper to educate the child at public
expense than II would be to allow him
to grow up In igncrancs and then iikht
MS ignorance and inetficieney in adult
The enormous expense to the tax
poyers Of child-poverIy-the millions Il
costs to build and maintain asyIums.
feeble-minded institutions. epileptic
colonies. and prisons will be greatly. re-
duced when child-Doverty Is abolished.
Matter of Public Economy.
THE results of child-poverty Is now
the greatest of all expenses the tax
payer has to bear and the most use
les: therefore child-poverty should be
abolished as a matter Of public econ
omy and all maudlin sentiment to the
set aside.
Nearly all people ara now ready for
this great movement to entirely abolish
because the many cx-
periments in furnishing school children
With penny lunches have demonstrated
to all students the fact that the we'll
nourished child Is able to learn better
than the underfed child.
why should millions on millions Of
dollars be spent in splendid school sys-
school children to 20 to school hungry
and, therefore, unable to accept eouea-
ton?
"Our public school system does not
attempt to reform inefficient parentsfr
and then furnish education to children
next. It does not stop It's good Work
for the child until II has solved the
problem Of bad parents us eftort
first. last and all the time Is Tor the
Save the present generation OF
children from the running effects Of
poverty and We Will have largely solved
the problem of bad parents for the next
Indorssd BY Club Women.
Ju,Irs NeITs ideas meet with the IN
ouaIifed approval of club women who
bavs taken an active interest In child
waIfare. and have accomplished much
bv their efforts in behalf OF children
everywhere
federation of Women's Clubs Of the
District of Columbia, believes in Judge
NeiTs theories. which she says are
worthy of serious consideration by the
II heartily indorse his idea OF taking
care of the children physically as wei
as mentally" she says. I'm fact. their
nhysicaI comfort ought to be the rrst
And II their parents are
in this matter. II Is su the
more reason why the State should see
to it that the child should not be the
ono to suffer.
THE State need not do this necsssar-
IIy from philanthroplc motives either.
AS the Judge asserts. II Is merely an
protection to society,"
Of the child welfare department OF the
ans f1R1hE 10