that they will not make known to the parents and relatives of children who have been placed in family homes, the whereabouts of their children. Experience proves that the violation of this rule almost invariably results in the removal of the child from its foster home. A state board charged with the supervision of children placed in homes, having received a report showing the whereabouts of such a child, revealed the whereabouts of the child to its parents, on their application, without consulting the society which had placed the child. The impropriety of this course was immediately apparent, and the action has not since been repeated.

If defects or abuses are discovered by the supervising agency, they can usually be remedied by wise and kindly advice. Such abuses usually arise from ignorance, inexperience, or poverty, seldom from wilfulness or dishonesty.

It should always be remembered that time and patience are essential elements in the development of social institutions. Five years is a short time for such development. Wisdom must often be gained by slow and painful experience. It is not reasonable to demand that people entering newly upon the discharge of such responsibilities shall immediately acquire the wisdom to discharge them wisely. Every good institution has an individuality of its own, and has to develop gradually to its best estate.

If the defects are laid plainly and clearly before the governing board of the institution, they will usually be glad to take steps for their removal. Allowance should be made for the obstacles and difficulties which may necessarily delay a reform, and a reasonable time should be allowed. If no responsible governing board exists, pressure should be brought to bear to secure the creation of such a board. If, after a reasonable time, steps are not taken to remove the trouble, publicity will be found a wholesome remedy; but, in the great majority of cases, relief can be secured without such decided action.

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC SUPER

VISION.

BY REV. D. J. M MAHON,

GENERAL SUPERVISOR OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF NEW YORK CITY.

I can agree fully with the paper by Mr. Hart. I do not think that there is any private charity organization existing to-day that ought to exist which would fear inspection by any state board of charities. If it does fear it, then there is reason why it should have a reasonable inspection. But we must go further. The question is the state supervision of private charities. Mr. Hart spoke of private charities receiving public aid. I would make another distinction. Private charities are of two kinds: first, those receiving public aid; and, secondly, those receiving no public aid. As to the first, the state supervision of private charities receiving aid and public funds, we agree that there should be something in the way of inspection and visitation of such private charities in order to obtain the two great aims; viz.: helpfulness to the beneficiaries of charity and true economy to the state in its payment for such care. Now, to obtain these two great aims, what means shall be used? for that is the question, after all. The advantages are worthy, and should be obtained. The end, however, does not justify the means. The means must be just and rightful as well as the end. The question is to find a line of distinction between the state's power and the individual's power. That line is very hard to draw, to say just where the state shall come in and just where the power of the individual shall end. (The private charity whether controlled by one person or by a board of directors, stands before the state as an individual, physical or moral.)

It is a question that has been before our general government from the very beginning, and has caused very much litigation. Virtue stands in the centre. While the real line of demarkation cannot always be easily found, there are matters, however, in which justice is clearly placed on one side or the other, and it can be determined by the agreements made. So in the present instance.

When private charities are receiving public funds, whether they

F

are from state, county, municipality, or township, there is a contract made between the public and the private institution; and, according to the terms of that contract, framed by the State Board of Charities, the investigation should proceed. The state has a right to see, when it gives over any of its dependents to the care of an institution, that the contract shall be fulfilled. It should see that the beneficiaries of charity receive proper clothing, are well lodged, have proper food, proper amusement and recreation, and that they receive it in a charitable and kindly manner. If the institution fulfil its part of the contract, then the state on its side must give funds for the support of the dependents according to agreement.

Shall the state come in and examine how this money is disbursed? I know that no institution in the state of New York objects to proper supervision of its finances; but we are asking the question, What is right, what is the proper ground? for it is only on truth and justice that you can build a suitable right. Because it gives so much money to the support of dependents in an institution and sees by strict investigation that these dependents have everything that could reasonably be asked for, why should it go behind the returning board and ask how it has spent the money received on the contract, any more than it should go to a company of paving contractors, working on the streets, and, after inspection of the contracted work, would see that the job was done well and properly, demand from the firm how it has spent the money received for the work?

Now it may be said that the state should strive to find the most economical method of supporting children, and should use this means. I am sure no institution will object to showing its accounts, but the state has not the right to demand it, unless reasons of wrong-doing demand such action. The price is a question for the open market. The experience of years tells to a nicety what should be the cost.

How far shall this inspection of the care and support go? Shall it change the system in the institution? Shall it make all institutions in the state conform to one principle of action, to one mode of government, to one set of detailed rules? It has as little right to do so as it has to govern the different families in the state, and make them conform to one line of action in regard to their children. It has the right to require changes needed for their proper care. But if it sees that the institutions in which the children are brought up

are conducted according to all proper demands, it has no right to control, modify, and change what is in the institution.

The state as a universal' provider must leave autonomy to the institution, which is the moral family of the dependants. "De minimis non curat prætor." One honorarium and system will suit one place and not another, according to the directive powers.

When it comes to the question of state supervision of private charities that are purely and wholly private, we enter another question. There are charities over which I think we will all agree that the state should have no supervision, as when I give alms in the poor-box or in the collection in the pew. Let us make distinctions in the meaning of purely private charities. First, there are those purely personal charities just mentioned. Second, there are various societies for the help of the poor and the afflicted without having their custody. Third, there are the institutions which have such care, support, and custody. As to the first there can be little difficulty. The second, such as the care of "Needy Families in their Homes," does not seem to justify any action on the part of the state, as we shall see farther. As to the third class, since it comprises those wholly dependent, the state may claim the right, First, to grant or refuse the incorporation of such institutions according to the ability of the incorporators to fulfil all requirements; Second, to obtain from them statistics, only as far as to determine the number of dependents in the state. But it has no right to enter into the private history of these individuals. My history is mine. If I am not a charge upon the state, why should the state come to me and ask me about my history, assuming that I am conducting myself in a proper manner? Third, the state has the exercise of police power, the power of entering into institutions where there is maladministration of any serious nature, and of righting the wrongs, or, rather, in the first instance making those who are in charge of the institution right the wrongs. The question of supervision of private charities by the state has agitated various states. Some Boards have thought to establish the same power over these charities as over those receiving public aid. Massachusetts tried to make this a statutory law during the past year, as the chairman's report tells us. It was thought that this power existed in the State of New York; but the Court of Appeals ruled otherwise, and later it failed to be enacted as a statute law. It is said the reason why this power should be

given is the abuses occurring in these institutions. That is an example of the fallacia accidentis. Because there are a few abuses, the whole thing must be overturned. Because some things are poor, therefore, every blessed thing must be inspected. We might say under this arrangement that an inspection should enter into every family, for some parents abuse their families. These abuses, on the other hand, are not frequent. They are but few, and therefore should not be the ground for a state supervision of all.

It is true that private insane asylums are visited and inspected by state authority, but there are special reasons. The past history of the care of the insane justified such power. Then the danger of placing innocent and sane people in them by unscrupulous persons, as well as the likelihood of frequent cruelty or retaliation by keepers of obstinate cases, make this power a proper one to be employed. The insane are a class apart.

It is said that the dependents are wards of the state, and, therefore, the state should see how these wards are taken care of. But, if they are wards of the state, they are, first, wards of the foster family or institution; and the state has no more care of them than of other children. The progression of power is: first, the family; second, the individual; and, third, the state. Man is not made for the state, but the state is made for man. Man does not get his rights from the state. We will not agree that man by his past ever has given up to the state such power over him. Man, therefore, has the right to bestow charity; and the state shall protect him from abuses, such as will arise in all human frailty. The individual has two rights before the state: the right, first, to happiness. That is guaranteed by the Constitution; and, in the pursuit of that happiness, he has power to bestow his charity as he will, and cannot be rightly annoyed unless for the common good. Second, he has his dignity as a man, which precedes any claim of citizenship. The state must not interfere where there will be tension of the rights of the individual.

"Nay, if the scale do turn

But in the estimation of a hair,"

a change must be made. We know there is great danger of going too far in giving power to the state. Socialism can arise from the acts of those who would push centralization into the domain of individual rights, as much as from the blatant demagogues decried by all reasonable men.