workmen which had earned him the ill-will of his employers.  He defended his present mode of living, vigorously putting up a strong argument that it was a real marriage, whereas the other had only been a sham.  He spoke in terms of affection of the woman who was giving him the only real home he had ever known, and only wished that the state of public opinion would permit his taking his young daughter into his home.  The boy, he realized, had grown entirely away from him and they could never mean anything to each other.  It was his habit to make frequent trips back to the region where his family lived in order that he might stand on the corner and watch his children go by.  He gave readily much information about his own and his wife’s past connections, including the addresses of many of her relatives whose existence she had denied, and he successfully proved that her claims as to his lapsed payments were false by producing the entire series of post office receipts covering his remittances to her and extending down to the very week of the interview.[15]

There have been striking changes not only in the treatment of the deserter but in that of his family.  Writing in 1910, Miss Breed[16] deprecates the habit of fostering the deserter’s “easy-going conviction that his family will get along somehow without him” by giving relief.  She approves offering full support in an institution, but is reluctant to recommend any form of aid in the home, even from relatives.  It is better, she feels, to give entire support to some of the children in foster homes, leaving the mother only those she can care for.

Much can be said for even so stringent a policy as this.  An unstable home, with a worthless father an intermittent member of the household, is as bad an environment as children can have—­its very fluctuations making for nervous instability and a wrong point of view later on.  There is a possibility that other would-be deserters may be deterred by temporarily breaking up the home, and that an occasional absconding father may be brought back.  But the fact remains that social workers have, in practice, departed far from this point of view.  Out of more than twenty-five case workers of experience who were interviewed or written to in preparation for this book, only one believed there had not been a decided change toward a policy of more liberal relief.

One district secretary told of a woman who had more than once taken back a disreputable husband whom she always professed to dislike.  Aid was given sparingly and intermittently during his absences; but finally the woman in a burst of frankness told the secretary that she had never felt confident the society would stand behind her.  Each time the man came back with money in his hand, she cheated herself into believing that he meant “a new leaf.”  A budget was worked out with her, and a promise given of an adequate income as long as she kept her husband away.  She has faithfully kept her side of the bargain for