New-York tribune., 1922-04-07
tcontlnued from page cnel

to turn over their children TO us, the
communist government"
The disturbances that ensued in the
homes while this doctrine was being
put into effect. the concealments, sub
terfuges, attempts at force and vio-
ience practiced by mothers in an effort
to keep their children to themselves
and within the bosom of the family,
constitute an unwritten volume of the
social history of the revolution. But
the government had every argument
on its side, not the least of which was
the fact that every one had to work.
The woman was withdrawn from the
home because the only means Of OBJ
tanning a ration was to go out and
work for it, and parents soon accepted
the pathetic logic that after all they
might as well accept the service the
state offered them in taking care of
their children.
The story of the children's homes
established in great hotels and iii the
finer houses, apartments and club
buildings; of the efforts to keep these
warm and supplied with food stuffs.
Of the epidemics that broke out in
these homes, sometimes wiping out a
large portion of the infant population,
has been sketched to me by doctors
who observed the homes in operation.
1t too is a story that must wait. Upon
the educational and hygienic programs
of these institutions the government
lavished much doctrinaire thought.
But the naturalization of children
was failure and has been so con-
fessed by the government.
Government Finds Task
OF Foster Mother Too Hard
When the supplies began to run low
and it became increasingly difficult to
feed and clothc the children and heat
their houses the government started
a movement back to the family. Here
developed some unexpected and unfor-
tunate features of the program. Many
of the parents had disappeared, many
had taken other burdens or, having
tasted freedom from the expense of
children, had no desire to take it on
again. 1t was now necessary to force
parents to take their children. Child
rem of known parents were literally
set out of doors and ordered to seek
their families again. There has been
developed in Russia a species of child
waif unlike any known elsewhere in
Europe, child first taken from the
home, then returned to an unwilling
parent and by him permitted to grow
up in the ways of street vagabondage.
Neither this generation nor the next
in Russia will recover from the effects
of the loosening of the family bonds
as between parents and children
From Soviet figures we have learned
that the numbers of marriages in Mos
cow doubled between 1917 and 1919.
While the number Of marriages was
thus increasing 100 per cent the num-
Der of births was decreasing 60 per
cent between 1915 and 1920. In the
former year the number of births in
Moscow was $1,000. In the latter year
the number of births was only $4,000.
At the same time the child mortality
per 10000 inhabitants was rising from
7S in 1915 to 420 in 1919 and 400 in
1920
Every day in Russia is day of emer-
gency for the head Of the family. He
has, of course, his job, or has three or
four jobs, which he drives four in hand.
But these do not altogether quiet his
anxieties. To get the little extra that
means just enough, the wife and the
children must go out to sell things.
The children may sell cigarettes, the
wife may sell knick- k-knacks on the mar
ket. BY this means the living is eked
out
The government has worked out a
system which it calls the "mimmum
amount required for living" Like much
else the government has evolved. this
system has provided activity for some
busy Office workers, but it has no pos
sibie relation to reality. AS an example
of governmental wisdom, the following
schedule is interesting as showing the
manner in which the minimum wage
OF the family should be allotted to diff
ferent expenditures: Expenditure on
food, including the preparation of
same, 80 per cent; clothing and boots,
10 per cent; housing, light and fuel,
1906 per cent: hygiene. bath, soap,
etc, ESQ per cent; cultural require
ments, l25 per cent; stimulants,