Newspaper Page Text
Social Problem
Copyright, 1913, by the Star Company. Hreat Britain Rights Reaarvsil
How Two Wives
Solved a Great
‘Mr. Cohen had a vision. He seemed to see eight hungry children walking up his steps three times a day chorusing ‘You sent our pop to jail; you must feed us.”
0UI8 DRUCKER was down In
Ludlow Street Jail, where New
J York sends ihe gentlemen who
Observe the curious fact that Mrs
Cohen Is already accepting the thing
as certain.
“The Womans Justice Which Will Rule the Future”
won't pay up their alimony and other
gentlemen who won't pay less un
usual debts. Mr. Drucker owed Mr.
Samuel Cohen a matter of $19, and
Mr. Cohen, falling to collect, had
sent Mr. Drucker to Ludlow .lull for
two weeks to wipe out the debt. Mr.
Cohen wouldn’t get any money by
doing It. nobody would get any
money and Mr. Drucker wouldn’t
be able to make any money for
his wife and children while in jail,
but that was the law, and Mr. Cohen
at least got satisfaction of a sort.
Mr. Drucker, pacing his cell, pon
dered over the foolisnuess of a law
i hat puts a man who owes money in
a place where it's impossible to
make any mouey
Mrs. 1 trucker and
the eight little
Drucker children
were all sitting
It <> m e thinking
much the titime
thing. Nobody
knows better than
Mrs. Drucker lmw
hard it is to keep
eight, children from
being hungry. Yet
here was Mr. Drue
ker in that foolish
jail—and the truth Is that there was
not a thing to eat in the house!
Now it can readily be seen that
neither the Druckers nor Cohens are
what is called “Important people.”
No ono outside of their own little
sphere would even have heard of
them if It hadn't been that Mrs.
Drucker, much worried over the sit
uation, suddenly encountered a real
ly important idea. When an unim
portant person gets an important
idea they become noteworthy—like a
coal Bcuttle that Is full of diamonds
or a piece of old paper with a son
net by Shakespeare in his own hand
writing. Hence this raising of the
Druckers and the Cohens into the
limelight
it was very late—or very early—
when Mrs. Drucker got the idea,
Not long alter "Rap, rap, rap" went
somebody on the Cohens’ door.
Samuel Cohen sat up In bod. His
wife, her curl-papers awry, sat be
side him. They stared. It was half
past five o’clock lu the morning.
Rap, rap, rap.
Mrs. Cohen pointed to the door.
“Go, Sam.” she commanded.
Shaking in Ills red buthrobc with
yellow stripes, Mr. Cohen obeyed.
From behind the door he peeped into
the hall at the wife of lamis Drucker.
Mr. Cohen tried to shut the door.
Mrs. Drucker pushed past it. She
strode into the room. Her daughter
Martha foliowcil. They sat down
without invitation, but with a deter
mination to stay so strong as to be
audible.
"You put my husband in jail and
taken our support from us,” said
Mrs. Drucker, “Now support us!"
"Go, woman!” said Mr. Coheu.
But Mrs. Coheu stopped in her
task of taking down her curl papers.
“You have how many children?”
she asked.
"Bight,” answered Mrs. Drucker.
‘‘This is Martha, the oldest. The
youngest isn’t weaned yet. We're
coming to live with you unless your
man gets my man out of jail.”
Mr. Cohen retreated into a closet.
He came out in street attire.
“I’ll have the police lock you up,"
he said. He w-ent out Soon the
stairs creaked. In came Mr. Cohen
and a policeman.
“Get along here. You're disturb
ing this man's peace!" cried the po
liceman.
“He disturbed mine! He locked
my man up because he owed him
something he couldn’t pay!”
Everybody talked.
“Talk it over among yourselves,”
the policeman advised at last in de
spair, and the stairs creaked again.
They talked until it was time for Co
hen to go to work.
"i’ll be back soon and bring the
other seven,” Mrs. Drucker assured
Mrs. Cohen. Mrs. Cohen, preparing
her two for school, permitted a tear
of self pity to trickle down her
cheeks.
‘Ten children in this flat, and we
were crowded before," she sighed.
“There’11 be a clatter irorn morning
.till night And the cost!” ~
That evening Mrs. Drucker came
back bringing most of the children
with her, five to be exact. The
Cohens, sitting at their quiet evening
meal, paled as they heard the de
termined tramp, tramp of six pairs
of feet on the stairs, heard Mrs.
Drucker’s unmistakable rap upon the
door, heard the childish voices in
long sustained speech.
“We haven’t had a thing to eat
since you sent Pop to jail," was the
burdeH of their cry.
For five minutes they sat at tin'
(able, the meal interrupted, their ap
petites gone. Then Mrs. Cohen re
peated her order of the morning.
“Let them in. Sam.”
Mrs. Drucker marched in as a
general marches at the heud of his
army. She deployed the army to
various points of vantage:
“Here, Martha, take Pearl and sit
on that chair by the window. Aaron,
you stand by the door and let no one
get out. Give me the baby. Eva, and
you take that stool by the stove.”
Mr. Cohen profaned. Mtb. Cohen
placed her hands on her temples and
burst into tears. Mrs. Drucker and
(lie children sat and looked at the
table.
“It’s justice. Your husband owed
me the money,’’ said Cohen.
"He didn't,” cried Mrs. Drucker.
But that doesn’t matter. You've pm
biin away where he can’t earn any
thing and you've got to feed us, yes.
and when the month’s out at our
flat, you’ve got to sleep us!”
Cohen started to walk the floor.
But Martha was in his way to the
window and when he turned to walk
the other way he tripped over Eva.
Baffled, he went hack to his chair.
"Go out and lake a walk, Samuel,"
his better half issued her command.
"This woman and I will trv t"> sei-
tle It.”
Gladly Cohen es
caped. “My wife's
a smart woman,
most as smart as I
am,” he said to a
friend, whom he
met. on tlie corner.
"She'll tix her.”
When he ascended
the stairs an hour
Inter quiet had fal
len upon his home.
The enemy, lie
thought, hml re-
treated before his valiant wife, but
the characters in the drama had
merely shifted. Mrs. Drucker sat
opposite his wife at the 'able drink
ing a cup of tea.
His wife looked up with a glance
that Cohen well knew.
“Sam," she said, “You’ve got to go
and get that man out of jail. It’s
the cheapest. You’ll save money
by It.”
“But 1 won’t. He owes me that
money. I’ll make him work it out.
He’ll stay there fifteen days. I’ll
teach him to cheat me."
"Sam!” The tone was quelling.
The flow of Cohen's eloquence was
dammed on the instant. "Sam, if
you don’t go and get that man out,
I’ll leave you and I’ll take the chil
dren with me. What's more, we’ll
stay.”
Mrs. Drucker straightened the
boy’s cap. “If you don’t," she said,
"we’ll all be back to breakfast.”
The next morning l.ouis Drucker,
paled, chastened but grateful, was
back at his home and his tailor shop
"That fellow came and got me out.’’
he said. “He had to pay to do it.
It cost $2 jail fee. $2.40 capture fee,
75 cents poundage and 18 cents
mileage. Yes, it’s all paid and he
paid it and it nearly killed him, but
I’m out.”
"That's woman's law.’ said Mrs
Drucker. assorting the family laun
dry for Monday.
"Surely It’s woman's law and its
right,” she went on. If a man's got
enough money he ought to support
the family of the man lie’s sent to
jail, and if a man kills auother one
he ought to be made to support his
family all his life.”
"It was woman’s law.” agreed
Mrs. Cohen.
And that's what makes this article
important enough to print. What is
this “woman’s law” that pushed
aside the man-made laws that fitted
the case. Here an eminent Now
New York jurist tells w hat he thinks
it is.
W HEN Mrs. Drucker forced the man
who put her husband In jail to feed
her children she reached out with
one hand Into the "custom of the bygone
patriarchate and with the other she touched
the very near future when an entirely new
conception of justice will reign and women
will be its guardians.
In the ancient patriarchate when a man
was killed by another, or was injured by an
other, his wife, widow or children could claim
and certainly get certain compensations. In
our civilization if a man kills another man
the law executes or imprisons him, but the
widow and children must go to almshouse or
asylum If they cannot support themselves.
The Ideal law, of course, would be to make.
I lie murderer w ork the rest of his life to sup
port the family lie had w ronged. But In that
case would not be the murderer’s
own innocent family stiffer? Why
should they suffer any more
Ilian the murdered man’t family?
There is utterly no reason. The
old idea of the "sins of the
father being visited,” etc., is
morally wrong and brutal. We
are getting a finer, newer concep
tion of justice. Soon, I believe, we
will work out the problem I have
.outlined so that neither family be
come paupers or are left in want,
and at the same time the guilty
will be adequately punished.
We are approaching this state. For
instance, a man Is arrested for not
supporting Ills wife and children. We
put him in jail for it. But his wife
and children are not supported any
more by him while in jail than out of
it! What an idea of justice! Now,
however, laws are being framed
which will make such a prisoner
work while in jail and the payment
for this work will go to his wife.
Mrs. Drucker did not know it. but
she was really applying the old com
mon law that a man might send a
man to jail because he owed him
something, lint lie was responsible
for his keep.
Generally adopted and carried to
Its extreme, her principle of an eye
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and
bread suppleld for bread denied,
would lead to a confused sense of
property rights and to an anarchy of
possessions. Cohen was within his
rights. Probably Drucker deserved
to go to jail. Cohen could have had
Mrs. Drucker arrested and could have
arranged to send the children to an
institution, but he may have been a
humane man. But his wife was hu
mane and wouldn’t permit him to do
so. It gives us a vision of the future
a new matriarchate. Mrs. Cohen
and Mrs. Drucker sitting in Die
kitchen settling a i>oint on which
their husbands fought, is a prophecy
of tiie success of a female board of
arbitration.
By Judge Wauhope Lynn,
(The Di. i inguished
Mrs. Drucker and Mrs. Cohen settled the
matter on the common ground of household
necessities. That is what government will be
when women share in It—simply an extended
housekeeping. The principles of the well reg
ulated household will reach into all branches
of the government and better them.
To illustrate this: I was walking along the
clean streets of Denver recently, keeping a
wary eye on the sign, “Don’t expectorate,” for
I sometimes chew tobacco. A neat, we$(-
dressed woman passed me and I heatd her
speak “to a street cleaner. She spoke in a
kindly, admonitory way.
"George.” she said, “that culvert back there
is quite filthy. That must be kept as clean as
the rest of the street. Will you please attend
to it at once?”
New York Jurist)
George did, and I looked after the neat
young woman with admiration.
I had not noticed that the culvert was un
clean. With woman’s keen eye for detail and
her. beautiful sense of fitness, she knew. 1
learned that she was a street inspectress.
One day there came up before me in court
200 policemen. There was chaos about street
signs. Some were hung too low, some too
high, some were too large. The men tried
and bungled and lumbered Into court. Women
with their eye for form and proportion would
have settled that without coming into court.
Certain Inharmonies in the law they will
adjust. For instance, as man made the laws
there are strange inequalities and inconsist
encies about the property rights of woman.
The woman who has no children has fewer
rights in a property sense than the woman
who has. The law regards the last as a whole
woman, the first as half a woman.
The young woman usually receives a larger
allotment of property than the old one. These
crookednesses women will speedily straighten
and we need not fear for long the confusion of
property rights which will at first ensue.
Mrs. Drucker’s Portia-like wisdom has made
me a stronger suffragette. With their help I
have no doubt that the just principle of mak
ing a man who has widowed a wife and or
phaned a family work for both State and that
family will be carried out. If, for example, a
man’s earning capacity in prison is $1.20 a
day, 60 cents of that should go to the State
and 60 cents to the family he has bereaved.
More than anything else, though, Cohen’s
lost case and Mrs. Drucker’s victory are im
portant, because It shows us the feminine
viewpoint applied to the problem of harmon
Izing the law with the conditions of life
Every law is the result of a human prompting
Her human prompting was for the welfare of
her children. She took the short cut to it.
Women will do that when they have c. nart in
the administration of the law.
Mrs. Drucker and the Whole Eight Drucker Children.
Why the Dog, Not Man, Is the Most Highly Educated Creature in the World
By Rene Bache.
M OST people would say that man was the most
highly educated of living creatures. But such
is by no means the fact. It is the dog that de
serves thus to be characterized.
The dog has undergone certain educational processes
to which man has never been subjected. So extraordi
narily effective have these processes been that to-day
the brain of the dog is bigger by something like one-
fourth than that of a wolf of equal weight and size.
As everybody knows, dogs are the direct descendants
of wolves. Bin let us see, to begin with, exactly what
is meant by this statement. For the precise significance
of it is not generally understood.
Scattered over the earth are many species of the
genus eanls. Wherever any of these species has been
found possible to tame, it has been domesticated. The
species which have proved susceptible of domestication
are called dogs. Those which, like the coyote, have
proved incurably wild are called wolves.
That is ail the difference there is between a dog
and a wolf, at the start. But the difference between
the wolf and the dog as we find them to-day is enor
mous. The former is an enemy of man: the lajter is
his most faithful and devoted friend.
it is all a matter of education. But in order to realize
how through education the dog has been evolved from
the wolf, we must go back to a period long before the
earliest dawn of the most primitive civilization—to the
days, in short, of the Troglodytes, or Cave People.
For it should be understood that the dog was the
first domesticated animal. It was certainly domesti
cated tens of thousands of years before the horse or
the sheep or any other living creature. Furthermore,
its domestication was accomplished at the outset by
women, in all likelihood, who brought home occasional
wolf pups and raised them as pets. ,
Wolf pups of any breed are rather inclined to be
fierce when they have got beyond early puppyhood. But
this fact necessarily resulted in a weeding out of the
fiercer ones, those of gentlest disposition being saved,
to become in their turn the parents of other puppies,
destined to undergo the same process of selection.
It was through such artificial selection that the
fiercer wolf qualities were gradually eliminated. Doubt
less the reason for taking so much trouble in the breed
ing of the earliest types of dogs was that primitive man
found them very useful. They may have been more or
less serviceable in the chase, but their principal useful
ness was doubtless for guarding the cave or other dwell
ing against surprise by an enemy.
Primitive man was himself a rather ferocious animal.
We see to-day plentiful evidences of the survival of
this ferocity in crimes of violence, and most strikingly
in the fact that civilized nations, for the settlement
of their disuptes, customarily resort to the expedient of
wholesale murder and equally wholesale destruction of
property, calling it “glorious war.”
Primitive man knew no such thing as peace. He was
in constant apprehension of attack by people of near
by and rival settlements. By night and day he w as obliged
to be on the alert, lest he be killed, his children mur
dered, and his women carried away. Hence the value
to him of a four-footed guardian who could be counted
u[>on to be always on the alert and ready to give a
prompt alarm in case of danger.
Such was the beginning of the domestication of the
dog. And it should be realized that the breeding of the
animal was conducted, and has ever since been con
tinued, on lines wholly different from those considered
in the breeding of any other creature. Horses, cattle,
sheep, pigs and chickens are bred solely for the improve
ment of physical qualities—for speed,, size, strength
beauty, wool-bearing, egg-production, etc. The dog, on
the other hand, has been bred chiefly for the improve
ment and development of its moral qualities and intelli
gence.
Probably this has been going on for at least, 100,006
years. During all that period, from generation to gen
eration the gentlest and most intelligent dogs have been
selected for breeding. And as a result, we have in the
dog of to-day the most faithful and devoted friend we
know—an animal which in certain respects is on the
much higher level than ourselves, morally speaking.
Undeniably, the virtues which iif human beings we re
gard as highest and noblest of all are loyalty and unsel
fish devotion. In these respects a good dog is superior
even to the best human being. With him a disregard of
self goes so far that at any time he is ready to lay down
his life foe his master. His love and devotion are abso
lute and unqualified.
Human beings have never been bred for intelligence.
Neither have they been bred for the improvement of
their moral qualities. It is all chance medley from
generation to generation, so that the son of a philoso
pher and philanthropist is just about as likely as any
body else to turn out a useless degenerate. It is inter
esting to consider what the human race might be like
to-day, and to what heights is might have arrived, if it
had been subjected to a process of selection for moral
and mental attributes, like the genus canis, for 100,000
years.