man with no very decided opinions. After considering the facts he thought it wise for his sister to keep the children together and for his mother to remain with them. His own financial situation was straitened. He had five children—a son, who was a widower with one child, living at home and out of work; two other sons of working age, also out of work; one girl at work and another in school. The family was held together by his small wages and what the daughter earned. He was in debt for rent and other necessities. He was willing to give his mother a home, or would contribute toward her support, and thus help his sister too. We had to show him why, under the circumstances, he was not justified in helping others. He agreed to wait until the income of the family was larger and then do what he could.

"On visiting the married sister we found that the income of her husband was sufficient only for the support of the immediate family. Again no financial aid was promised. In the sister, however, we found a strong moral character with a keen appreciation of all the difficult elements in the situation, and a realization of her duty to stand by her weaker sister and the children. Because of the lack of family resources she had urged that the children be placed in homes. She readily accepted the other plan, however, and we left her, feeling that there was at least one person on whom we could depend for the most sincere and cordial co-operation. She regretted her inability to help materially and we hope she took a little comfort from our assurance that her genuine moral interest and oversight were the indispensable elements, the real hope, of the situation. We found she was a woman very much respected in a certain circle of people among whom she had lived all her life. Her pride and self-respect were strong, and she realized that at any time her sister's real story might be known. This did not deter her-her sister was her sister through good or ill repute, and that ended the matter.

"We had now to see those two men who had not replied to our note. We called on the grandfather of the children one evening. He apologized at once for not writing, and when he explained in detail the way his time was occupied by his work and the care of an invalid wife, we did not wonder at the delay. With him we had to face a most delicate and difficult situation, one that took all our courage. Here was a quiet, dignified man who had always been fully competent to guide his own affairs. He had positively decided that his future course as to this family of his son was to treat them as though they were non-existent. He stated his reasons for such a course-good reasons, almost unanswerable from one point of view. Years before he had done all he could to prevent this union. He had seen Mrs. X, as we still call her, and told her that his son had a wife from whom he had not been divorced. His efforts were fruitless. He had, too, given much financial help during the past twelve years, and now he felt he owed all he could spare to the care of his sick wife and their approaching old age. Our sympathies were with him and we told him so, although we could not quite agree with his conclusions. We led him to consider the future of the children and his responsibility regarding them. Finally after due deliberation, he agreed to co-operate for six months by giving one dollar a week, through us, toward their support.

"We also called in the evening on the single son and brother. He boarded with

a woman living on the second floor of a tenement house. The family thought this woman received most of his wages. She was certainly in his confidence, for when we inquired for him through the tube she would not give any information or open the door until the name was given. Then the man came rushing downstairs exclaiming, as soon as he opened the door, ‘I have not answered your letters because I want nothing to do with my sister, and anyway I have been out of work, and I haven't any money to give her.' We said, 'Good evening,' and then he said, 'I beg your pardon,' and we began our talk on a more friendly basis, continuing the interview on the steps outside, which seemed preferable to the possibilities of the apartment upstairs. His attitude, plainly stated, was that he would not help support Mr. X's children. They might be cared for by the state or in any way the community provided for such children. We finally found ourselves discussing frankly his sister's life and character, and his own duties in relation to her. He saw that, in ways he had not realized, he had been a detrimental influence. This thought affected him more than anything else. His whole attitude changed and the result was that he promised one dollar a week and some oversight over the children, especially a troublesome nine-year-old boy. For five months he has kept his promise.

"Our next step involved an extension of the family idea. We asked a group of people who were constantly studying the best interests of children, the trustees of a home for children, if they would consider giving this mother a cash allowance so that with the other resources she might keep the family together. This they unanimously voted to do although it was the first time in the history of the institution that such a course had been taken.

"Summarizing the situation, we find:

“First, that the grandfather who felt his duty ended saw a further duty; second, that the brother who acknowledged no obligation to a weak sister saw that he had not helped her to be strong; third, that the married brother was deterred from his unwise self-sacrifice; fourth, that the sister came to realize that her strong moral support was of more value than financial aid; fifth, and lastly, that the trustees of the home took, as it seemed to us, a progressive step away from institutionalism.””

One record submitted for study opens with a picture of an educated man who had lost his eyesight through a drug habit, a wife also addicted to drugs, who a little later becomes insane, and their little boy, whom the mother neglects but to whom the father is so devoted that he refuses to let him be taken away. The woman's Relatives in another state did not reply to letters. The man's sister and brother, who lived still farther away, wrote that they did not wish to have anything more to do with him. A little later, however, a third member of his family, another sister, who had heard indirectly of the previous correspondence, wrote a letter full of intelligent questions: "Is it true that my brother has attempted to take his life? Will he not probably attempt to take it again? Was drink or poverty the cause? Is he in a rescue home, a hospital, or where? Is he a confirmed drunkard, and do you see any conditions that would reform him? As I under1 Chesley, Annie L.: "The Responsibility of Family Life." Survey, May 22, 1909,

p. 269.

stand, he will not be separated from the child. Is he strongly attached to his wife also?" The letter goes on to explain that the writer had not heard from her brother for more than ten years and did not even know that he was married. She is eager to do all that she can, but is a widow in delicate health and could not provide for all three of them. Then out of the depth of her interest more questions: "What caused the blindness? Is there no hope that he will ever see? It is a cruel thing to separate a family under normal conditions, but sometimes it has to be for a time at least. How old a woman might his wife be? Are you a friend, a nurse, a missionary, or a sister of charity? Excuse the inquiry. Do not lose sight of him until I can hear from you. If I should write to him, would it be wise? I have decided to help him if I can, but that will not be by sending money there. . . . I cannot think he has the thirst for drink that makes drunkards. Some strong outside influence, poverty or a weak character, must be at the bottom. Tell the particular cause of the blindness, and if there is any hope that it may not be permanent."

These questions were answered as fully as possible. Meanwhile, a further effort had been made to find the woman's Relatives. A clergyman in their town, whose name had been found in a church directory, was asked to visit them, since no charitable organization could be found to do so. His intervention brought a reply at last written by the stepmother of the woman. It was full of expressions of sorrow, and offered to give a home to the little boy, provided he could be sent at the society's expense. The next day brought a second letter withdrawing this offer, and adding that if the little boy is as unruly as his mother used to be, it would be impossible to take care of him. "You will have to get him a good home somewhere through the Children's Home, or whatever other means you have of making such arrangements. I am awfully sorry that we cannot under the circumstances do anything for him, and if he goes to the bad I would feel myself responsible."

The man's sister was made of other clay. None of her family would join her— "I stand alone as far as my family are concerned, and whatever I undertake I must try and be equal to." Nine days later (the wife had meanwhile become violent and been removed to an insane asylum) comes a third letter. "I now beg to say I have had time to think in a more collected way and come to better conclusions than when I wrote you at first." Then follow instructions as to just how to send the blind man and his little son to her home. Two weeks later the sister writes again, "I think it only courtesy on my part to write you that my brother arrived safely in due time, found some one ready to assist him in the necessary changes, and is now comfortable. The little boy is in school and seems to be rather a desirable child. . . . I would think as I observe my brother that it will be a long time before he sees, although he seems to be very hopeful. He has a good appetite, and says he rests much better here than he has for a long time."

Complaint was made to a probation department about a girl of seventeen by her mother, a widow whose record was not above reproach. The probation officer saw the paternal Relatives, and was much impressed by the two aunts, who were far more careful in their statements than "in-laws" usually are. The officer, realizing the seriousness of bringing a court complaint against the girl, felt that the

case could safely be left with these Relatives, and told them so; but the aunts were rather frightened at the responsibility and said that they did not know how to talk to their niece. The officer advised them to "put it straight up to her" that they had heard she was going with a disreputable man, and to make the most of the affectionate disposition which they said she had. They succeeded in getting from her a confession and a promise to give the man up. The probation officer continues to make suggestions, but has not had to appear in the situation in any way. With reference to several of the foreign groups, it is necessary to bear in mind that godparents hold a relation to the family quite as close as that of Relatives, and that their co-operation is invaluable. In their own country the ties of kinship even of kindred not nearly related-are close, and it is pitiful to see the dropping away of this interest and sense of responsibility wherever America's social agencies are many and careless.1

4. Further Considerations. In addition to the importance of Relatives as sources of interest and backing, it may be urged that they have a moral right to be considered-the same right, whenever they have tried to do their duty, that any church or other social agency interested in a family would have in like case, only their claim is somewhat stronger because the relation is more personal.

Miss Mary I. Breed gives an instance of this: "One experience came from a woman of great worth, left a widow, and doing her best to support her two boys. She was aided generously and given the friendship of a sympathetic visitor. Her family were not seen, because of her claim that they had refused all help. When she developed a mental malady her children were given into the care of the city and then an agent of the city saw the woman's brother. He was justly incensed that he had not been consulted before, as he had been both able and willing to help. His sister had been alienated from her family, and her bitterness toward them was a part of her mental disease."

Moreover, Relatives are themselves a part of the community, potentially a helpful part, and any agency interested in co-ordinating the social service of a community cannot afford to leave them out.

One interesting by-product of social work is the occasional reestablishment of family relationships and the wearing away of misunderstandings.

1 For a discussion of the co-operation of Relatives in institutional work for children see "Pittsburgh as a Foster Mother," by Florence L. Lattimore, in The Pittsburgh District, Civic Frontage, p. 398 sq.

2 In one of the short, unpublished papers referred to in the Preface.

Miss Breed gives an illustration of this also: "We know a Jewish widow who, after the death of her husband, had been helped most generously by her family until they lost all hope, and ceased aiding because of what seemed to them her incurable laziness. When a medical diagnosis showed that she had neurasthenia, and when a set of teeth and a long course of good food and fresh air had made her another woman, an uncle felt so contrite for his past neglect that he set her up in a small grocery shop."

An S. P. C. C. worker was applied to by a young man who had been placed out from a foundling asylum when he was three years of age. Now grown and doing well in a farming community, he wished to find his four brothers. Through correspondence with the foundling asylum and the town clerk of the community from which they originally came, their whereabouts was discovered, one of them writing, "If you wanted to see a happy young lad, you ought to have seen me. I sat down and wrote my brother a nice long letter of eight pages, and the next Monday I got an answer from him and his family's pictures. He wanted me to come right down. . . . It makes a fellow feel happy to know he is not alone in the world, and that he has some folks."

III. QUESTIONS OF SUPPORT FROM RELATIVES

Questions of support (complete or partial) from Relatives and of temporary relief to be given by them are often allowed to demoralize our diagnosis and hamper our treatment. Those who turn to Relatives for nothing but material things are unlikely to use them wisely for even this one object. The case records of public departments and of private agencies abound in such pennywise-and-pound-foolish policies, in overemphasized legal responsibilities and underemphasized social opportunities.

Responsibility for support can be enforced by the state, which has the right of recovery from Relatives, "if of sufficient ability," in the direct line of descent. Support laws vary in the different states, but quite generally the two parents and four grandparents are responsible for the support of children, and children who have attained their majority are responsible for the support of dependent parents and grandparents. Public departments and institutions receiving public subsidies are often very careless about the enforcement of these provisions. When they bestir themselves to enforce them at all, they tend to become so interested in the finan

1 Children are definitely held responsible in 35 states, parents in 32, grandchildren in 22, grandparents in 20, brothers in 13, and sisters in 12; in a number of these states, however, responsibility is restricted, in cases where intemperance or other bad conduct is the cause of distress, to parents and children. See Summary of State Laws relating to the Dependent Classes, United States Census, 1913.