director or his agent of the charitable institutions belonging to cities and villages, and a copy of the report of the inspection shall be sent the governing body of each institution. Annual reports are to be made to the director by all institutions; and at any time the governor may order a thorough examination to be made by three citizens of the island, designated for the purpose, of the condition and conduct of any private institution of charity where children or adults are cared for or confined.

Such are the chief items of interest the past year, touching state supervision and administration, which have come to the notice of the committee. If, in connection with these, we read over the reports from states to the last few National Conferences, we shall notice several marked tendencies of the times which raise questions of much interest and pressing importance. The Conference wishes its committees to be very practical in their reports; but often the most practical thing which can be done is to look backward and forward to see, if we can, the real significance of things. In the field of charity and correction the tendency is plainly in the direction of the increasing exercise of administrative power and of supervision by the state. The agents of the whole community are now exercising power in matters which before were either left to the local units of government or were wholly neglected. This tendency, which is seen in every field of interest, follows naturally from the growth of communities and their closer relation to each other. But it means,

also, that the leaders in charitable thought and action see that local interest in charity is often weak or ignorant of the best standards, and that on the sovereign state rests the solemn duty of insuring that the forms and powers of administration are the best available

ones.

Considering this tendency to greater activity on the part of state governments, with the increase in population and in the number of charitable institutions, and with the growing diversity of agencies. owing to better differentiation of the various classes, let us ask the following questions, even if we cannot add to all of them our definite answers.

To what extent can a state "board of control" manage institutions for different classes advantageously? The answer depends on whether a state can secure the services of a reasonable number of persons for intelligent and faithful work, some to care for and think

about one class of dependants, and other groups to care for and think about other classes. If it can secure them, it should. Each institution should be under an expert superintendent. There is no reason to believe that one board of control for all will secure better superintendents than the various boards of control can, if they be made up of intelligent and faithful persons; and the influence of experts on their respective boards must result in more general education and interest in charitable and correctional work. One board of control for all or many state institutions is not a necessity in order to bring about saving; for desirable saving, as by joint contracts, may be made easily by arrangement between institutions or through one state fiscal officer.

Secondly, with the increasing tendency to state supervision of charitable agencies, what is the best state agency for supervision? In a small community, as the District of Columbia, for example, a combination of duties is not unnatural, that the board which controls the public almshouse should supervise private agencies used by the district; but we should remember that such supervision is based chiefly on the idea of public oversight, following public money. The ideas on which a reasonable supervision of all charities rest are rather the protection of the charitable, the protection of helpless human beings, the common welfare. The inspection of private hospitals for the insane by the state has no connection with public funds. In a large and progressive state there are usually several state agencies in some form, as lunacy commissions, boards of health, factory inspection, insurance commissions, boards of charities, for the protection of individuals and for the common welfare. In such a community the supervision of charitable institutions will be best done by a body which is not burdened by the first duty of control of many institutions. Two considerations, also, must be taken into account. A board of control, which does the supervising of other agencies, is not supervised itself by any public body which can really know much of its work. Grand juries and local boards of visitors have little knowledge of the best standards. They may discover flagrant abuses, but they are not likely to be helpful in suggestions for better work. Nor are busy legislative committees or governors likely to be able to supervise adequately. Here is a notable inconsistency. And, secondly, a body which supervises, especially in our communities with citizens

of different racial customs and different forms of religious faith, should be of moderate size, and very representative of the whole community. If our governors do not appoint such bodies, are those same governors likely to appoint better men to small boards of control? Let us get clearly in mind that the chief duties of a board of control, whether of one or of several institutions, and the duties of a state board of supervision are not the same. The less the laws try to make them identical, the better. Nor need the existence of one board drive out the existence of the other.

After all, the chief matter to keep in mind is the effect which different methods of state supervision and administration will have on securing quickest a public interest in these things, which shall be general and enlightened, and therefore likely to last. The method which will best accomplish that is the method by which the most persons will learn that charity, public or private, is something more than mere decent care of the ill, the destitute, and the offender. The failure to distinguish between saving and true economy has prevented much progress. The administration and supervision of charity which this Conference should stand for will be economical because, while more money will be spent to-day, the aim will be to treat needy individuals so as to prevent the increase of pauperism and crime, and to rouse and educate more of the benevolent public to its civic duty, to take part intelligently in that great work.

JEFFREY R. BRACKETT.

AMOS W. BUTLER.

HUGH F. Fox.

LEONTINE LINCOLN.

GRACE W. MINNS.

CHARLES P. NEILL.
SIMON W. ROSENDALE.

Mr. William P. Lyon, of Wisconsin, could not sign the report, as he believes in one state board of control charged with administrative and supervisory functions. The other members of the committee, Mr. Ernest Lister, of the state of Washington, Rev. James W. Orman, of Tennessee, and Mr. B. H. Osterhoudt, of Porto Rico, have not been heard from concerning the report.

STATE SUPERVISION OF PRIVATE CHARITIES.

BY HASTINGS H. HART, LL.D.,

SUPERINTENDENT OF ILLINOIS CHILDREN'S HOME AND AID SOCIETY.

Has the state the right or the duty to supervise private charities, organized by voluntary effort and supported, in whole or in part, by voluntary contributions? If so, on what ground, by what agencies, and to what extent?

It is a delicate and often an ungracious thing to interfere between a giver and the object of his bounty, to dictate to an individual or an association how they shall use their own money in efforts to help their unfortunate fellow-men. Yet, on reflection, we cannot avoid the conclusion that it is both the right and the duty of the state to exercise a proper supervision over at least some private charities. The report of the Committee on State Supervision and Administration of Charities and Correction shows a decided tendency in the direction of an increase of such supervision.

The right and the duty of public supervision of voluntary organizations rests upon several plain and familiar principles :—

First. It is the duty of the state to follow funds appropriated from the public treasury, and to see that they are applied to their intended purpose, and that they are economically and efficiently used. In many states, like New York, Pennsylvania, and California, it is customary to appropriate public funds from the state, county, or municipal treasury for the partial or entire support of institutions controlled by private corporations. It is not necessary at this time to discuss the wisdom of this policy. It prevails widely, and millions of dollars are so applied each year. The state has no right to give blindly to any institution, however well administered, without careful inquiry how its funds are used; and, while this duty is often neglected or imperfectly performed, the right has pretty nearly ceased to be questioned.

Second. It is the right and the duty of the state to supervise private charities in the exercise of its police powers, for the protection of the life and health of those who are under the care of voluntary organizations, as well as those who are employed in caring for them. In

the exercise of such police powers public authority has gone much farther in the supervision of other private enterprises than in the supervision of charities. We interfere with business enterprises by a rigid supervision of insurance, banking, mining, and manufacturing. We even dictate to druggists, plumbers, etc., as to who their employees shall be. We require a public certificate for lawyers, physicians, veterinary surgeons, pilots, engineers. We interfere with the liberty of individuals by quarantine, vaccination, and other health regulations, and by the compulsory isolation of persons suffering from contagious diseases; and the public submits with increasing cheerfulness to such control as its good results become manifest. But there has been a feeling in some quarters that charitable organizations were peculiarly sacred, and that, in view of the good work in which they are engaged, they ought not to be subjected to the annoyance and implied criticism of the same kind of inspection which is given to an insurance company, a factory, or a job of plumbing. So, private hospitals have been allowed to occupy unsanitary premises, where the patients contracted worse diseases than those that brought them there. Helpless invalids and little children have been congregated in fire-traps. Little babies have been ruthlessly taken from their mothers' breasts, herded together in unventilated rooms, cared for by ignorant nurses, fed with improper food, have died by hundreds when they ought to have lived; and pious matrons, in monthly reports, have discoursed upon the mysterious ways of Providence in gathering these little lambs into the heavenly fold.

It is beginning to be seen that the duties of the health department do not cease at the outer door of the hospital, the orphan asylum, or the home for foundlings; and already there has been a notable improvement in the sanitary administration of such institutions.

Third. It is the duty of the state to supervise private charities because of the helpless condition of their beneficiaries. We have no right to leave the insane, the feeble-minded, the sick little children, the ignorant, and the unfortunate to the tender mercies of whatever quack may come along. These people are sick people, physically, mentally, or morally diseased; and we have no more right to let social charlatans practise upon their minds and souls than to allow medical quacks to practise upon their bodies.

"Canst thou minister to a mind diseased?" asked Shakspere. It