“Last year more than ten thousand children were proposed to the Department of Charities of New York City for commitment to institutions,” writes John A. Kingsbury, Commissioner of Charities in the Department of Public Charities of New York City, in reply to my inquiry concerning his view of the limitation of families. “Poverty or sickness or unemployment has outworn the welcome of more than ten thousand innocent little citizens in their own homes. These children are paying the penalty of the social error of too large families. It is frequently remarked that children are often found in the largest number in those homes which are least equipped to properly provide for them. I believe it is as serious a mistake for parents in adverse circumstances to bring children into the world for whom they are not prepared, as for parents in affluent circumstances to decline to bear children because of the inconvenience or embarrassment to their scheme of living. If contraception can benefit the born by limiting the unborn, without bringing about any physical or moral deterioration in human lives, I am unqualifiedly in sympathy with it.” _JUDGE WM. H. WADHAMS, Court of General Sessions, New York. “The Spreading Movement for Birth Control.” The Survey, Oct. 21, 1916._ In the Court of General Sessions, New York City, Judge Wadhams suspended sentence upon a woman, mother of six children, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary, her second offense. His investigation showed, the judge declared, that the mother had made a hard, but unsuccessful attempt to support her children since the father had been driven from his work in garment working five years ago. Meantime, two of the children had been born. Said Judge Wadhams:— “Her husband is not permitted by the authorities to work because of his being ill with tuberculosis. It would be dangerous for him to work on children’s garments. It might spread consumption to the innocents. There is a law against that. As a result of this law the husband has had no work for four years. Nevertheless, he goes on producing children who have very little chance under the conditions to be anything but tubercular, and, themselves growing up, repeat the process with society. There is no law against that. But we have not only no birth regulation in such cases, but if information is given with respect to birth regulation people are brought to the bar of justice for it. There is a law they violate. The question is whether we have the most intelligent law on this subject we might have. These matters are regulated better in some of the old countries, particularly in Holland, than they are in this country. I believe we are living in an age of ignorance, which at some future time will be looked on aghast.” _LETTER ADDRESSED TO PRESIDENT WILSON BY A GROUP OF NOTABLE ENGLISH WRITERS AND SOCIOLOGISTS, September, 1915._ To the President of the United States, White House, Washington, D.C.