At the opening meeting four questions were discussed: Is the immature child a proper object of charitable relief? Shall the state pension widows? Shall the school support the child? Shall charitable societies relieve family distress by finding work for children? The last question, so far as it was referred to at all, was emphatically answered in the negative, as the first was in the affirmative. The discussion turned chiefly upon the question of mothers’ pensions and the respective value of public relief and private philanthropy. The sentiment of the conference was plainly for a carefully guarded form of mothers’ pension by the state. This, it was felt, should be considered in relation to other remedies such as the minimum wage, workmen’s compensation, and the prevention of those industrial accidents which so often deprive the family of the chief breadwinner. It was also felt that such pensions should be regarded from the standpoint of justice rather than of charity, the mother to be looked upon as rendering service to the state as the bearer and rearer of children. A thorough acquaintance with the recent discussions of the problem in THE SURVEY was displayed and there was some apprehension expressed of the many failures through ill-considered legislation probable before success would be finally reached. The majority apparently believed that pensioning mothers was not simply a problem of relief but one comprising other elements, as the word “pension” rightly indicates. While it was recognized that hungry children make poor pupils, it was felt that any further weakening of parental responsibility for the child by the school would be unfortunate. The discussion along these lines included talks by Sherman C. Kingsley of Chicago; Jean Gordon of New Orleans; Mrs. Florence Kelley of New York; Grace Strachan of New York; Mrs. W. L. Murdoch of Birmingham; A. T. Jamieson of Greenwood, S. C., president of the South Carolina Conference of Charities; R. T. Solensten of the Associated Charities, Jacksonville, Fla.; Leon Schwartz of the B’nai B’rith, Mobile, Ala.; Mary H. Newell of the Associated Charities, Columbus, Ga., and others. Rabbi David Marx of Atlanta added a touch of scholarly research to one session in his paper on Ancient Standards of Child Protection. Economic factors were discussed by Miss Gordon, who spoke on the eight-hour day and by Richard K. Conant, secretary of the Massachusetts Child Labor Committee, who dealt convincingly with the fact that the textile industry in Massachusetts no longer depends upon child labor in spite of the numerous plaints concerning the ruin of the industry of the sort which Dickens satirized in Hard Times.