I have seen several mentions of the Humane Society in the Pantagraph over the months that I have been writing this blog. Nowadays when we think of the Humane Society we think only of animal cruelty. But in the early twentieth century, cruelty toward women, children and animals were all regulated by the Humane Society. Yes, it makes you stop and think, doesn't it. Women and children were being protected on the same theories of cruelty, inability to protect oneself and claim to status as living beings.
On this date one hundred years ago a young couple was being fined for attempting to fob off their child as an orphan at the Babyfold. The baby had been born in Indiana ten days prior and then the couple had some to Illinois, ostensibly to find work, but possibly only to discard the child. When their plan was dicovered by the matron at the Babyfold, Attorney Kerrick was notified and the couple was picked up. A fine of $300 was levied and it appears that the couple appealed to her parents for assistance. The father was well able to pay the fine, and although there was criticism from the public for such a large fine, the magistrate explained that the father was able to pay the fine and the attorney for the Humane Society was only paid if a fine was actually collected. Many of the cases for the Humane Society never resulted in payment of a fine, and the attorney was never paid. Whether this really justifies the heavy fine was not really addressed.
A very quick check of census records didn't reveal any couple by the name in the article, so they may have been using aliases. They were forced to take the baby away with them, and its fate is unknown. Apparently the Babyfold only considered the fate of being an orphan to be justification for protection. The fate of being unwanted was not considered worthy of concern.
Comments