Revelations of "baby farming" in New Zealand were shocking to those who were unaware of it - especially those who believed that the young, vigorous colony was not susceptible to the social and moral ills of the decadent Northern Hemisphere. Minnie Dean was, of course, the big baby farming story of the 19th century. Before her was Myra Smith of North-East Valley, Dunedin.
A DUNEDIN BABY FARM.
SHOCKING DISCLOSURES.
[BY TELEGRAPH] UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION.
Dunedin, 5th November. A baby-faming case was before the Police Court to-day, when Myra Smith, an elderly woman was separately charged with having wilfully ill-treated and neglected two children in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering and injury to health. Constable Walker, in his evidence, said he visited her house with a Miss Millar, and accused the woman Smith of keeping a baby farm and neglecting and ill-treating children. She denied ill-treatment, and after drawing attention to the filthy state of one child he asked, and after a time was allowed, to visit another room, in which there were four babies of the ages of 12 months and three years. There was also a boy, a son of Mrs. Smith's, in the room. He was 12 years of age. Three of the children were sitting on the floor, one was standing against the fireplace, and the boy was playing with them. The room was a good-sized one, but evidently the doors and windows were thoroughly closed, and the stench in it was unbearable and sickening. There was only a small box in the room, and no other furniture. He asked Mrs. Smith to strip one of the children, the boy Hayes. She took the clothes off the boy with reluctance, and he observed on the body some marks, apparently caused by scalds, and other marks, while all over the body there was filth. There were blue and black marks which appeared to be heals from sores. The clothes on the child were stinking, and were sticking together with dirt. Mrs. Smith said she was sick and could not look after the children. Witness went into another room, in which there were two beds, the only two in the house. They were roughly fixed, and had bags across the bottom of them. Mrs. Smith would not let them search any further in the house. He only saw five children, but if he had been allowed to search the house he believed he would have found more. There was a burial four months ago, and last year and the year before two deaths had occurred. Corroborative evidence having been given by Miss Millar, the accused had nothing to say except that the witnesses were prejudiced. Mr. Carew, R.M., said as the woman had been bronght before him for conviction in a summary way, he was not able to inflict a heavier pnnishment than three months imprisonment in each case, either with or without a fine. He thought that each of the cases was one in which he shonld inflict the full penalty of imprisonment. The accused would be convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour on each charge; the sentences to be concurrent, as there were no previous convictions against the accused. He also remarked that he had fortunately formed an accurate judgment of the woman's character when she brought an application before him some time ago to adopt a child, and he refused the request. -Evening Post, 7/11/1890.
A baby farmer named Smith, described as "an elderly woman of small stature," whose house, or rather den, is somewhere in the North-East Valley, was last week charged before Mr Carew with ill-treating and neglecting five babies found in her possession by the police. The "ill-treatment and neglect," as deposed to in court, is too horrible to describe here. Suffice it to say that the children were found fastened up in a room, the only furniture of which was a small box and a strong stench — a stench characterised by one witness as "fearful," and by another as "sickening and unbearable." Here the helpless little mortals were left to rot in sores and filth. Constable Walker, of the North-East Valley police station, who admitted that he had known for years that Mrs Smith trafficked in babies, gave some extraordinary evidence. He "had every reason to believe that had he been allowed to search the house he would have fownd other children." Apparently he considered that the finding of five in a perishing condition was enough for the present. "There was a burial from Mrs Smith's house about four months ago; last year two children had died, and two others in the previous year." After these facts and others equally damning had been complacently related to him, the Magistrate remarked: — that if accused had been tried before the Supreme Court she could have been sent to gaol for two years and fined £200; but as she was brought before him for conviction in a summary way, he was not able to inflict a heavier punishment than three months' imprisonment in each case, either with or without a fine. He thought that each of the cases was one in which he should inflict the full penalty of imprisonment. Accused would be convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent, as there were no previous convictions against her.
Mark the beautiful consistency of this. "The Supreme Court would send you to gaol for two years, Mrs Smith, and fine you £200, whereas I can only give you three months on each charge, with or without a fine. I feel it my duty to inflict the full penalty; therefore you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment in each case — sentences to be CONCURRENT, and we'll say nothing about the fine." Verily the life and health of babies seem to be held cheap in the Police Court."
But this is not all. Something in the story of these nefarious doings as reported in the police news seemed, as I read it, dreamily familiar to me. Mrs Smith — female ogre — baby farm — Port Chalmers road, otherwise North-east Valley — surely, I thought, I must have heard of this, nay, must have written about this, years ago. A brief search through the Witness file settled the matter. In Passing Notes of January 17, 1880, — nearly 11 years back — I had written as under:
Ghastly, ghoulish, enigmatical, altogether horrible in its suggestion, is the following advertisement which appears at intervals in the Star: —
"Mrs Smith's Saturday advertisement. Children adopted. Moderate premium. Mrs Smith, first house down Port Chalmers road." Ponder this well. We know that more children enter this world than have any legal ight to do so, and that children exist whom their mothers and fathers — especially their fathers — don't care to acknowledge and, are glad to be rid of. Hence, apparently, the need of such services as are tendered to society by Mrs Smith. She will disembarrass us of these little strangers who have unlawfully interpolated themselves into the stream of events, adopts them — takes them over for good and all. Why does she do it? Philanthropy, let us hope, and mere goodness of heart — aided by a "moderate premium!" What happens and, what does she do with them when the moderate premium is exhausted? That beats me quite. The more I dubitate, muse, and perpend, the more I can't understand it. Anyhow the trade is brisk enough to justify a standing "Saturday advertisement." Mrs Smith always has vacancies it seems, and is always "asking for more."
This, and more to the same effect, I wrote in this column ten years and ten months ago. How many unfortunate bantlings, "adopted" into the elastic family of Mrs Smith, has she promoted to a better world in the interval? I submit this question for the serious consideration of the mole-eyed, leaden-pated police. -Otago Witness, 13/11/1890.
And here is the passage from ten years before, in full:
Ghastly, ghoulish, enigmatical, altogether horrible in its suggestion, is the following advertisement, which appears at intervals in the Star: —
MRS SMITH'S Saturday Advertisement. Children adopted; moderate premium.— Mrs Smith, first house down Port Chalmers road. Ghastly and ghoulish, I repeat, and a deep mystery! You don't quite see it? First, then, ask yourself, Where is the locality referred to? It can't be the North-east Valley. No one can imagine a baby-farm or barracoon for derelict infants in that populous and respectable suburb. Yet there is no other "Port Chalmers road," except one along the beach with no houses, and here and there a half-hidden bush-track leading into the Port. We must suppose some such perfectly retired and lonely spot as the scene of Mrs Smith's operations. There she devotes herself to the business of "adopting children at a moderate premium." Ponder this well. We know that more children enter this world than have any legal right to do so, and that children exist whom their mothers and fathers —especially their fathers — don't care to acknowledge and are glad to be rid of. Hence, apparently, the need of such services as are tendered to society by Mrs Smith. She will disembarrass us of these little strangers who have unlawfully interpolated themselves into the stream of events — adopts them — takes them over for good and all. Why does she do it? Philanthropy, let us hope, and mere goodness of heart, aided by a "moderate premium." What happens, and what does she do with them when the premium is exhausted? That beats me quite. The more I dubitate, muse, and perpend, the more I can't understand it. That business-like "Saturday advertisement" fascinates me. Mrs Smith always has vacancies, it seems, and is always asking for "more!" Then think of the vague generality of such a name as "Mrs Smith." What definite idea can one attach to such a designation? It is a mere form of anonymity. Horace Smith, Sydney Smith, Piazzi Smith, and other specialised Smiths, possess individuality; but "Mrs Smith," pure and simple, is nothing better than an abstraction, which the mind grasps at in vain. Is Mrs Smith an embodied entity at all, or merely a symbol and an allegory? Is not the true reading Mrs Myth ? I incline to this as a philosophical solution of the whole difficulty. I would treat it as my clergyman treats a text out of the minor prophets. "Mrs Smith," who advertises for more babies every week, is not an ogre, but a personification of the forces of Nature. "Children adopted " means that the rate of infant mortality is high; "moderate premium" is a reference to Funeral Reform; and "first house down Port Chalmers road" is another version of Facilis descensus averni. But, then, who pays for the advertisement? -Otago Witness, 17/1/1880.
THE SEQUEL TO THE BABY FARM CASE.
At the City Police Court on Thursday Alice Rogers, Robert White (12 months' old), and a child whose name was unknown (15 months' old) were charged with being indigent children within the meaning of section 16, subsection 1, of "The Industrial School Act 1882." — Sergeant-major Bevin said that these children had been under the charge of Mrs Smith, who was sentenced last week for baby farming. Constable Walker had taken the children before the Charitable Aid Board, and the members desired that they should be brought before his Worship in order that they should be committed to the Industrial School. The constable had also asked Mrs Smith the names of these ohlldren. and also information relative to their parents. She could give no information as to the parents, and did not know the name of one of the children. He would put Constable Walker in the box, who would give evidence as to the conversation he held with Mrs Smith. — Constable Walker deposed that he found the three children, in the house of the woman Smith. He saw her in gaol, and asked.her the names of the children. She knew the names of two of the children, but was unable to tell witness what the third one was called. She got the children, she said, in answer to advertisements in the paper, and received L3 or L4 with each child. After that she hoard nothing more of the parents. Witness believed that he would be able to find out the names of the parents of one of the children — the child Rogers — but regarding the others, he did not think he would be successful. Mrs Smith stated that she thought the mother of one of the children was an unmarried woman. She had, however, denied that she was the mother of the child, and the midwife who had attended her corroborated her statement. She stated that there were marks on her child, which could not have been removed unless by a surgical operation. Witness found that children that passed through the hands of Mrs Smith were scattered over the whole of New Zealand. — Mr Carew: Do you know anything about the religion of the children? — Constable Walker: I do not, your Worship. — Mr Carew: Were they baptised? — Constable Walker: I don't think so, your Worship. — Mr Carew then said that the children must be sent to the Industrial Sohool. He was required by act to state what religion the children should be brought up in when sending them to the institution, but he could make no such order in the present case, as there was no evidence before him to show what religion the parents were. If any evidence, however, was forthcoming in the future on that point, he would make an order accordingly. The three children would be committed to the Industrial School, but no order would be made regarding the religion they were to be brought up in. -Otago Witness, 20/11/1890.
No comments:
Post a Comment