nly quite recently that hygiene has cried shame
upon those mothers whose laziness makes them refuse to suckle their
own children; in our times queens and empresses who suckle their
children are still cited admiringly as examples to other mothers. The
_maternal duty_ of suckling her own children prescribed to mothers by
hygienists is based on a physiological principle: the mother's milk
nourishes an infant more perfectly than any other. In spite of this
clear indication, the duty is far from being universally accepted.
Often in our walks we still see a robust mother accompanied by a wet
nurse gorgeously attired in red or blue, with gold and silver
embroideries, carrying a baby. Wealthy mothers have untidily dressed
wet nurses who do not go out with them, who always follow the modern
nurse, an expert in infantile hygiene, who keeps the baby "like a
flower."

And what of the other child?... For every infant who has a double
supply of human milk at his disposal, there is another child who has
none. The wealth in question is not an industrial product. It is
apportioned by Nature with careful precision. For each new life, the
ration of milk. Milk cannot be produced by any means other than the
production of life. Cow-keepers know this well; their good cows are
hygienically reared, and calves are sent to the butcher. Yet what
distress is felt whenever the young of some animal is parted from its
mother! Is it not so in the case of puppies and kittens? When a pet
dog has given birth to a litter so numerous that she cannot suckle
them all, and it is necessary to destroy some of the puppies, what
sincere grief is felt by the mistress of the house, whose own baby is
being suckled by a magnificent wet nurse! Well--the thing which
excites her compassion above all is the eager, whimpering mother, who
does not understand whether she has or has not the strength to suckle
all the shapeless puppies she has borne, but who cannot lose one of
them without despair. The wet nurse is quite another affair; she came
of her own accord to offer her milk for sale. What the other--her own
child--was to do, no one cared.

Only a clearly defined _right_, a _law_, could have protected him, for
society is based on rights. These, it is true, are the rights of
property, which are absolute; steal a loaf, even if you are starving,
and you are a thief. You will be punished by the law and outlawed by
society. The rights of property constitute one of the most