week and _ordered Onofrio to return home to live_.

A bulletin issued by the Seybert Institution of Philadelphia gives a
very interesting set of diagrams showing the relation (or lack of
relation) between the amount of man's income, size of family, and the
court order issued in the Philadelphia Municipal Court.[48]

This report gives a series of illustrations, where glaring
inconsistencies between the man's earnings and the court order were
observed by visitors to the court. A sample of the reports made by these
visitors is as follows:

"Man earning $30 to $40 a week at ammunition factory. Can earn $20
with no overtime. Has been sending woman $10 a week but has
threatened to leave town. Judge said: 'You can't keep up $10 a
week--how much can you give?' Finally ordered $8 a week. Woman said
she couldn't live on that and Judge told her she had to go to work
herself then; that they should live together anyway. Woman says she
is unable to work--is ill. When man stated he was giving $10 great
consternation seemed to take hold of the entire court force. He did
not say he couldn't pay $10; the judge simply told him he couldn't
keep that up."

The practice of assigning less than half the man's weekly earnings to
the wife and children has been defended on the ground that if he is
forced to live too economically, he will disappear and the family will
be left with nothing. This would seem to be a self-confession on the
part of the court that it cannot enforce its reasonable requirements. It
would appear that the first thing to be considered is the minimum needs
of the wife and children, taking into consideration whether the wife can