True, for a woman there is nothing more painful than putting herself face to face with the suffering of children.  Yet for many years now we have had in this country a large and increasing number who were going through the daily pain of grappling with every phase of the distressing problems which come from the poverty, friendlessness, and overwork of the young.  Out of their heartbreaking scrutinies there have come certain determinations which are being adopted rapidly wherever the social sense is aroused.  We may roughly sum up these conclusions or determinations to be these:—­

It is not necessary or endurable that children grow up starved and overworked, that boys and girls be submitted to vicious surroundings, that talent be crushed, that young men and young women be devoured by crime and greed.  Youth, its nurturing and developing, has become the passion of the day.  This is the meaning of our bureaus of Child Labor, of our Children’s Courts, our Houses of Correction, our Fresh-Air Funds and Vacation Homes, our laws regulating hours and conditions, our Social Settlements.

At its very best, however, legislation, organization, work in groups, only indirectly reach the base of the trouble.  These homeless babes and children, these neglected boys and girls, these reckless shop and factory girls, are generally the pain and menace that they are because they have not had, as individuals, that guidance and affection of women to which each has a natural right.  No collective work, however good it may be, can protect or guide these children properly.  Rightfully they should be the charge of that body of women who are unhampered, “free.”  These women have more, or less, intelligence, time, and means.  They owe society a return for their freedom, their means, and their education.  Nature has made them the guardians of childhood.  Can they decently shirk the obligation any more than a man can decently shirk his duty as a citizen?  Indeed, the case of the woman unresponsive to her duty toward youth is parallel to that of the man unresponsive to his duty toward public affairs.  One is as profitless and parasitical as the other.

The man who has no notion of what is doing politically in his own ward, who does not sense the malign influences which may be working in his neighborhood, in his very street, perhaps in the next house, who has not his eye on the unscrupulous small politician who leads the ward by the nose, who knows nothing of the records of the local candidates, never goes to the primaries,—­this man is one of the most dangerous citizens we have.  It is he who makes the machine possible.  If he did his work, the governmental machine, which starts there with him, would be sound.  It would be begun by honest men interested in serving the country to the best of their ability, and on such a foundation no future solidarity of corruption would be possible.