The conclusion remains that the overseers and many child societies are not working well. We have a thousand overseers, elected for short terms, and receiving little or no pay. Often they serve also in other capacities and carry on private affairs. If ordered by an expert commission to make specified payments to widows fit to bring up their children they might apply the standard to other cases. The commission would select its widows. Mr. Lee wholly misrepresents our intention when he notes “incidentally that the cause of a husband’s death is not always a satisfactory test of a wife’s moral habits.” Mr. Lee objects that we offer nothing for the children of disabled fathers, etc. If a third of the charity problem—widows—were to come under the care of a new commission, that commission would be able to work out its specialized technique. Later, we might know better what to do about desertion and other problems. Meanwhile existing charities, having a lighter load, could deal better with their remaining cases. Then as to our use of the word “worthy.” It is old-fashioned, but convenient. No person works long in charities who acts on the notion that one person is actually as good as another—else it would be folly to try to make a person better! Mr. Lee supposes us to regard the children of the disabled and similar groups as “unworthy.” Where such an implication is even suggested I cannot discover. In conclusion, I suppose that Mr. Lee and I differ fundamentally in our approval of a proposed method of dealing with widows, and that his criticism is derived from his point of view. ROBERT F. FOERSTER. [Chairman Massachusetts Commission on the Dependent Children of Widowed Mothers.] Cambridge. * * * * * I have read Professor Foerster’s letter with much interest. His last sentence: “I suppose that Mr. Lee and I differ fundamentally in our approval of a proposed method of dealing with widows and that his criticism is derived from his point of view,” a clear-cut statement of the possible reason for my criticism of the Massachusetts report, is not wholly accurate. The agitation for widows’ pensions has caught so large a measure of popular support that we begin to think that every person must be for pensions, against pensions, or on the fence ready to jump to one side or the other. Such a choice of alternatives has little attraction for any one who approaches the question out of thoughtful experience with relief problems and the long struggle to procure for the widow and others who live in misery adequate reinforcements—reinforcements of income, health, recreation, education for children and decent living conditions. Those who have been most concerned to do justice to the widow with children have seen most clearly the failure of our relief measures. The indictment which they have brought again and again has rehearsed the fact of our failure which is suggested anew by the Massachusetts report.