The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1917-01-29


for hungry children, appeasing the pangs of
hunger, will pauperize their homes, make their
fathers and mothers objects Of charity" and de-
pendents on public philanthropy?
Charitable giving is, perhaps, necessary, but
it is plain that it should be given through the
home and not to children at school." Giles.
If scientific charity" as administered by a
paid agent of public philanthropy" and as un-
derstood by Giles, as president Of the Central
Charity Bureau which hires Melpolder, does not
reach the home, and permits poverty to remain
there without alienation, pray tell, what shall
become of the poor children? How can charity
be given to the child through the home if Mel
polder does not see that the relief reaches the
home? Shall these children, according to the
reasoning of Giles, stay hungry and keep on 60
ing to school hungry? Giles admits there is pow
erty in the homes; Melpolder, his Secretary, has
neglected to give relief in the homes; and yet
Giles expects these children to be helped at home.
The logic in this reasoning is so unsound that
any one can see how palpably weak is Giles OPP
position to lunches from the standpoint Of "sci-
entific" administration of charity through his
Bureau. We say, Melpolder has not reached the
homes, the children are hungry, and if good
ones through an "old-fashioned" lunch, Giles
ought not to object but ought to thank God that
there are enough warm-blooded women in this
city to answer call for help when they hear it.
"This is entirely feasible, under the condi-
tons named above, and is in accord with the ex-
perience of Philadelphia and other cities where
such lunches have been tried."-Giles.
The conditions referred to by Giles are (1)
that NO FREE LUNCHES BE GIVEN; C2) that
the lunches be under the management of the do
nestle science department of the schools The
first condition is incomprehensible. If some
children are to have the right to buy lunches,
why should not lunches BE GIVEN FREE to the
poor children who cannot pay for them. The
women of this city proposed to pay for these
lunches, 50 that NO CHILD in Whitewater
school would go hungry Giles evidently prefers
a hungry child in Whitewater school to one that
receives free lunch given by kind woman. We
cannot understand the man. Does he mean to
say that he can stand by unmoved and see little
girl, with the pinch of poverty on her face watch
more fortunate schoolmate eat lunch which
she bought? Does he mean to say that he can
not understand what emotions must surge
through that poor little girls soul as she stands
there knowing that not through her fault, but
because her father is poor and unfortunate she
did not get enough to eat at breakfast, that hun
ger is gnawing like grim wolf at her vitals, that
the lunch which her happy little playmate is eat
ing represents social gulf which she cannot
cross? Does he mean to say that through an ord
er which he, as superintendent of schools handed
down, that this poor girl, with the image of God
written in her SOUL just claimant to all the joys
of childhood, little sister" of every aristocrat
or trench digger in the city of Richmond, must
be denied the food and consequent happiness
which band of noble women in this community
are ready to hand her, SO that she may feel in her
little soul that even if her father is poor, the
wives, sisters and mothers of more fortunate
fathers look upon her verify as the Christ wants
them to do-namely, as their little daughter and
sister on whom they may visit little of their
own prosperity The attitude of Giles on his first
condition is intolerable.
If the women Of this city want to play the
godmother to the little unfortunate children in
Whitewater school, Giles ought to be big enough
to discard the advice of John Melpolder, and, as
father and brother, tell the women to go ahead
and make themselves and others happy by dis
pensing charity. And John Melpolder ought to
turn away his face in shame every time he sees
a pupil of Whitewater school.
As to the second condition of Giles, it need
only be said that this is point of school admins
tration to which the women would have assented
gladly provided the restrictions would not have
killed the movement
The objections which Giles as a schooman
between the women and free lunches
can be swept aside in an instant. Remember,
however, that not the conditions of Giles as
schoolman, but the objections of Melpolder, to
which Giles as president of the Social Service
Bureau gave his assent, killed the free lunch