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.

But an indictment is not a remedy. The evidence behind it is not even valid always in the search for a remedy. What we need to know now is why have public and private relief failed. Professor Foerster mentions several statements of mine which do not seem to him successful arguments against widows’ pensions. I am not arguing against widows’ pensions. I merely recognize many considerations growing out of ten years’ experience in social work which make me both dissatisfied with what we are doing and suggest the need for the most careful study before we can be sure of a remedy.

I realize that many people grow impatient when the question of widows’ pensions is related to the problem of relief. Perhaps the movement, as some people hope, will be the entering wedge of a system of state endowment of motherhood. We cannot wisely, however, begin experiments for the sake of their expected future value with a total disregard of their certain present effect. Widows’ pensions as projected by the commission would be in fact a relief problem. The responsibility of the public outdoor relief machinery for their administration as proposed by the commission’s bill would indicate this even if there were no other indications, which there are.

I have found the Massachusetts report of the greatest interest, but in my judgment it does not justify widows’ pensions. The figures and the expressions of opinion secured from various agencies are significant. They are significant of the need for a deeper probe, however, not for an extension of an unsatisfactory system of relief. A recommendation that this deeper probe be undertaken is the one recommendation to which it logically leads.

It is because states which regard Massachusetts precedents with respect are likely to consider this report as the long-needed scientific and comprehensive study of the status of outdoor relief that I have tried to estimate it from this point of view.

The commonwealth of Massachusetts gave Professor Foerster and his associates on the commission a tremendously difficult task and gave them hopelessly inadequate facilities with which to perform it. Under the circumstances, perhaps none of us could have done any better. But Massachusetts should have done better.

Porter R. Lee.

[Contributing Editor Family Rehabilitation.]

New York.