the Poor, and the Tribune have sent their last parties to the country. During the past week the Children's Aid Society sent 326 children to Bath Beach for one week, 264 women and children to the Health Home at Coney Island for one week, and 224 women and children to Coney Island for one day. The Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, between the above dates, provided day excursions for 3,300, and a stay of two weeks for a party of 100 at Sea Breeze. On September 4, the last party, which consisted of 153, was sent to Sea Breeze, which closes for the season September 15. It The last A. I. C. P. excursion was given Saturday, September 1, to 500 colored women and children. was provided by a friend of the Association and took the place of an excursion which was planned for a day in August, but was not given on account of the race riots which terrified the colored people so much that they feared to leave home. On August 28 the Tribune sent its last party, consisting of sixteen. children, to Bethany, Conn. They will return about September 12. The Charities Review has some suggestive paragraphs regarding the outcome of the fresh-air movement in which it is suggested that in the abundance of our generosity we may have outstepped the bounds of what to the feeble child, the sick baby, or the overworked mother is a sympathetic social courtesy, and allowed the impression to go out that a gratuitous fresh-air outing is the right of every child of the tenement and that if the entertainment provided by a particular agency is not satisfactory, the patronage of the youthful guest will be transferred to some competing institution next year? We are not questioning, says the Review, the physical benefit to the children, nor the resultant gain to the community. But it must be borne in mind that for any large class of society to be educated into the habit of receiving a dole, whatever its form, from any other class of society is a policy utterly antagonistic to the democratic spirit of this country, a practice which can not but be fatal to the independence of the recipient class. In view of the above it is interesting that of the 1,507 women and children who were this summer in residence at Sea Breeze, the Summer Home of the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, over 600-about forty-two per centwere individuals from families who are under the care of the Relief De partment of the association or of District Committees of the Charity Organization Society. Nearly all of the others were from families of small wage earning capacity. An examining physician has been employed to ascertain in every case whether the applicant is one whose physical condition requires the seashore visit of two weeks. It sometimes happens that in order to secure the privilege for an overworked and delicate mother, it is necessary to take pretty robust children; but these are usually small children for whom the outing is clearly desirable. other words this particular fresh-air agency, and there are several others In conducted on the same principle, looks upon its work as preventive and remedial. Its usefulness is shown in such an improvement of health and physical vigor as prevents the necessity for relief. We learn that there have been this season forty-eight day parties with a total of 17,800 beneficiaries. The average stay of the 1,507 in residence owing to improved methods of administration, has been nearly three days longer than last year. There has been but one death at the home-a child of six months suffering from convulsions as a result from teething. The contributions for the season were $25,500. On September 4, Bellevue Hospital had 682 patients under treatment, and from August 25 to 31, inclusive, a total of 404 persons were admitted, of which 244 were men, 136 women, thirteen boys, and eleven girls; while the number discharged was 413, of which 256 were men, 128 women, seventeen boys, and twelve girls. During the above interval the total number of deaths was twenty-seven. On August 31, there were 704 inmates at the City Hospital on Blackwells Island, which has a capacity of about 750. On the same day the Metropolitan Hospital had 336 inmates, of which 196 were male and 140 were female. This hospital has This hospital has a capacity of about 384. MUNICIPAL HOUSING. BY ROBERT W. DE FOREST. Portions of an address delivered on July 11, at the Conference on Charity and Charity Organization, held in London, July 9-12, 1900. From the Charity Organization Review (Eng.) Some years since an American gentleman and lady of my acquaintance were on their yacht at Cowes during the Regatta season and were honored by an invitation from the Prince of Wales. Not being aware that under English etiquette such an invitation amounts to a command, and having a previous engagement, they declined. Being better instructed, when Mr. Loch invited me to this Conference, though I had already accepted another engagement, I have come. Nor am I extravagant in giving to Mr. Loch's invitation the force of a To us of the Royal command. Charity Organization faith in America he is the acknowledged leader, and his government being established and maintained by the consent of the governed, is equally sanctioned on both sides of the ocean. It is a British government from which we Americans of that faith have no wish to declare our independence. Nor do I come unwillingly. It is pleasant for me as an American, and as the chief officer of one of our largest Charity Organization Societies (that of New York), to be able by my presence as well as by my words to express in some measure the great obligation which our society and the Charity Organization. Societies of America (they begin to number legion) owe to the London society and to Mr. Loch, its official representative; nor can I imagine a more grateful reward for long years of constant and conscientious service than for him to be able to look about him at the present extent and power of the Charity Organization movement, and to be able to say to himself, as well he may, "This I have helped to create." It is also pleasant for me as an American to meet with Englishmen and discuss questions common to both countries, especially at this time when both nations are realizing as they have never realized before the tie of Anglo-Saxon blood, and that they have in many senses a common destiny as well as a common heritage. Some years since an American was entertaining an English friend, and in the confidence which good cheer fosters said to his friend, "If I were not an American, I would wish to be an Englishman." The Englishman, withdrawing somewhat into his insular reserve, replied, "Well, if I were not an Englishman, I should wish to be one." I imagine the reply might be different just now. Old differences which once had their sting have been changed by the kindly hand of time into memories which unite rather than separate. I was at Quebec last summer and was being shown over the citadel by a typical "Tommy Atkins," evidently as well primed in his work as the vergers of Westminster Abbey are in theirs and with somewhat the same. "poetical" method of expression. In the party was a Yankee father with two pretty daughters who had evidently attracted the soldier's interest. They all listened with strict attention to his explanations. "This,' he said, casting a smiling glance at the American girls, "is a cannon captured by the British Army at Bunker's Hill in 1776." "Yes," said the Yankee father, as he leaned down to verify the explanation before committing himself, "you've got the cannon and we've got the Hill." I speak with great hesitation on this question of workingmen's homes. What is being done in England I know thus far only from description. I purpose to give frankly my first impression on one phase of this question that of Municipal House Building. I mean the building of workingmen's houses and tenements by public money and their management by public officers. Speaking thus frankly the building and management of workingmen's homes by the municipality seems to me a violation of fundamental principles alike of good government and sound charity, and I venture to say that no seriously-minded body of men in America, no men or women of the type whom I see at this Conference, no charitable society of standing would venture to propose municipal building and management as a remedy for existing ills. I do not understand that these workingmen's homes which your English cities are building are in any sense homes for the incapable, or hospitals for the sick, or even temporary shelters for the unfortunate. Such establishments come clearly from the American point of view within governmental functions. But I understand they are intended as homes for ablebodied wage-earning men to be used as are like houses or tenements built for business reasons by business men. It is such municipal building schemes that seem to me fundamentally wrong. Consider them first from the point of view of the municipality. They will not accomplish their purpose. If they are intended to set an example and to demonstrate what can be done, they furnish no better demonstration than private benevolence has already furnished and can be relied upon to furnish in the future. If intended to house the workingman, they can deal with only a small part of the problem, and will prevent the greater part of it from. being dealt with effectually by other means. The municipality can not provide homes for all its working people. So vast a project can hardly be seriously contemplated. But if the municipality can not provide for all, who will provide homes for those whom it does not accommodate? Private enterprise? No. Private enterprise can not and will not compete with a municipality, which can procure money with which to build at less than an ordinary interest rate and will be likely to fix rents at less than a fair business return. Private benevolence? Private benevolence should not usurp functions which Government stands ready to exercise. Therefore, unless municipalities are prepared to provide homes for all workingmen, they are by entering the field and building homes for some workingmen closing the field to private enterprise and preventing other workingmen from obtaining like homes. Conditions will be worse than before municipalities began to build, for under the operation of the fundamental law of supply and demand, private enterprise would otherwise as heretofore have sheltered the greater portion. Nor is there any limit to the scope of such building operations when once undertaken. If there were, we might possibly agree that Government should provide homes for its humblest workers. If Government, however, is to become landlord at all, where should the wage line be drawn 5 between those for whom it should and those for whom it should not provide? Where in practice would the line be drawn in countries like England and America, in which democracy reigns supreme and the limit of public bounty within permitted lines is only ultimately determined by popular vote? I say public bounty, fully realizing that perhaps these schemes of municipal building may in intention exclude that element and contemplate a full business return to the munici pality, and moreover, that these schemes in their inception may be rigidly and successfully carried out. But sooner or later, and under the operation of causes of universal existence, there will be an element of public bounty in the allotment and use of public buildings, and the fact that there is an element of public bounty will operate to extend their scope. To initiate any such municipal construction is to break down. the dam, and that dam once broken down there are no bounds to which the floods may not flow. It may be urged that, whatever might be the consequence of American municipal management, British municipal management may be relied upon to maintain such a property on a strict business basis that is, by insisting on a full rental return and showing no favor towards tenants-and that in England no element of public bounty will exist. Eliminate all the possible elements of corruption, or, to put it more. mildly, all favoritism, and assume the municipal management to be honest as well as business-like, we meet another horn of the dilemma. Municipal homes under municipal management will be competing with privately built homes under private management, for, under such assumption, private enterprise will build workingmen's homes. The result of that competition will inevitably drive municipal building to the wall and leave it untenanted, or compel municipalities to accept less than a business rent; and again, perforce, introduce an element of bounty. The average city official, without the element of personal interest, will not manage so well as the private owner, with the incitement of personal interest; and that city official, however well intentioned, will hardly forget that he owes his place, in some degree at least, to those whom he is aiding his city to house. There are some kinds of work that Government can do well, but they are of a character in which no discretion from employees is required. Successful management of tenement property involves the personal element, the exercise of wise discretion, which private management can secure, but which is not attainable by the necessarily mechanical methods of government. Therefore, municipal building of workingmen's homes will not accomplish its purpose, because if initiated on a business basis (which is easy), and maintained on a business basis (which is very difficult), it can not compete successfully with private ownership; and if not maintained on a business basis, and therefore containing the element of bounty, it must provide for all, and involve plans so vast as to be impracticable. From the side of the municipality there is also the economical aspect. Public money must be used to build. Public money must be spent to manage. For the reasons alluded to, such buildings will sooner or later become a burden to the taxpayer. Moreover, their construction and management introduce a new element into public service, already sufficiently complex, and make just so many more government servants, whose relations with voters will be intimate and may become objectionable. These, however, may be deemed minor considerations. To me the most serious objection to municipal housing for workmen is not on the side of the municipality, but on the side of the workman. It is a blow to his self-dependence. It invites him to look to society, rather than to himself and to natural social laws, to provide his needs. Society should provide for its incapables whether incapacity should be permanent or temporary. That is universally admitted, whether the controlling motive be self-interest or charity; but that society should provide for its capables is to me a new doctrine. which, from an American point of view, savors of heresy. Are we to teach the new generation of workmen to rely on their own strong arms for their homes, or are we to teach them to look, like too many of their latin brethren across the channel, to their Government for a helping hand, and to weaken their sinews by leading them over hard places? If our workmen are taught to look to Government for their homes, why not for more? Where will the line be drawn between what a man should win for himself under natural social conditions, and what by right he should expect his fellows to win for him? If Government should provide a home, why not work? Perhaps I am giving too serious an aspect to these new municipal enterprises. It |