Quality, Not Quantity

President Roosevelt is said to have recently made a present of $300 to a father whose only claim to distinction was his paternity of twenty children by a single mother. This, taken in connection with other utterances, has given rise to sharp criticism and earnest disapproval. Many thoughtful persons feel deeply that what the country needs, and what the world needs, is not the greatest possible number of inhabitants, but rather a nobler quality of citizenship; a more permanent family life; better, wiser and happier men and women. Mere increase of population is no true measure of national prosperity; on the contrary, it is often the precursor and proximate cause of national decadence.

Our Washington correspondent makes a vigorous and timely protest in another column against recent impulsive utterances of President Roosevelt, which seem to lose sight of conjugal and parental obligations. Should not husbands feel responsible first of all for the health and happiness of their wives? Should not parents exercise forethought for the probable future of their offspring? Is it wise for men and women to marry and bring children into the world without the possession of an income sufficient to provide tolerably respectable and comfortable homes? The home may be humble, but it should not be squalid or poverty-stricken. Is it desirable that the swarming tenement-house population of our cities should continue to increase?

The unqualified and unconditional advice to rear children seems peculiarly foolish and wicked. Such advice is especially cruel to overworked and impecunions wives and mothers, without hired help, who are often broken down by poverty and toil. Let us modify the advice, and urge young people, before marrying, to save a few hundred dollars, and learn trades whereby to become assured of ability of self-support. Else President Roosevelt's advice will only tempt them to "marry in haste and repent at leisure" - Woman's Journal