the man, she often neglects; with the result that the orders of the
court mean little in the eyes of the men, and that arrears, once allowed
to mount up, are never cleared off.

This statement applies as well to long term orders for separate support
where the circumstances are such that no reconciliation is contemplated.
These orders are now made for a definite period of months, at the end of
which time the case drops unless the wife renews charges. A case of this
sort ought not to be terminable without a reinvestigation and final
hearing in court. Indeed it would seem, in such cases, that the children
involved should have at least as much protection as the children in
bastardy proceedings, and that the order should be made to cover the
term of years until the oldest child becomes of working age.

The most important step in advance with regard to payments is
undoubtedly the law which has been tried with signal success in the
District of Columbia and in the states of Ohio and Massachusetts,
requiring men serving prison sentences for non-support and abandonment
to be made to work, and a sum of money, representing their earnings, to
be turned over to their families.

In an interesting paper in the _Survey_ for November 20, 1909, entitled
"Making the Deserter Pay the Piper," Mr. William H. Baldwin discusses in
detail how this plan was made to work successfully in the District of
Columbia.

The movement for special courts to consider cases of juvenile
delinquency and marital relations has gained such headway that no word
needs to be said here in its favor. In communities where the volume of
court business permits such courts to be separately organized, they are