the children maintained wholly or in part by the State, or indentured or placed in charge of any person by any State institution, ward, or officer of the Commonwealth.

DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN.

We believe that the work of caring for the State children [the Massachusetts report continues] has grown to such proportions that the time has come to recur, in this instance as well as in others where State paupers are cared for, to the old principle of supervision, properly so called, and to create separate departments, one to have the care, custody, and control of the juvenile wards of the State, and the other to exercise supervisory powers in relation to the work performed. We therefore recommend the creation of a department which shall have the care, custody, and control of all the juvenile wards of the Commonwealth who are not in the State almshouse, or the Lyman School for Boys, or the State Industrial School for Girls. We further recommend that such department be subject to the supervision of the State board of charities, as it may be created under the recommendation of this report. The constitution of this department for the care of juvenile wards of the Commonwealth is a question of some difficulty; but we believe that, in view of the peculiar nature of the work it has to perform, it would be better to place at the head of that department a board of trustees of seven persons, one of whom shall be selected from the board of trustees of the Lyman and Industrial schools, and three of whom at least shall be women. This board would be similar to the other boards having charge of the different charitable institutions and lunatic hospitals of the Commonwealth. The advantage of such a board of trustees, as compared with a single head, are apparent, when it is considered that, in the care of the juvenile wards of the Commonwealth, educational and other questions of much difficulty arise which can be better treated by the combined judgment of several persons, devoted to and interested in that subject, than by the judgment of any one man or woman.

We recommend that all the juvenile wards of the Commonwealth who are now under the control of the trustees of the Lyman and Industrial schools outside the schools shall be placed under the care and custody of the department above suggested, and that in future, when in the judgment of the trustees of the Lyman and Industrial schools any juvenile ward can be better cared for outside the schools, such ward should be placed in the custody and under the control of the said department. In recommending that one of the members of the board of trustees of the above-named schools should likewise be a member of the board of trustees of the department for children we intend that there shall be sympathetic cooperation between the two boards.

The new department might be named the "department for children," and should be intrusted with all the powers and duties relating to the care, custody, and control of children now exercised by and incumbent upon the State board of lunacy and charity, and performed by it through the departments for the indoor and outdoor poor, as organized at present. It should have full power to appoint such agents and subordinate officers as it deems fit, and to fix their compensation, subject to the approval of the governor and council; and to it should be transferred the licensing of boarding houses for infants and the prosecution of cases of violation of the infantboarding law. Moreover, the agents and other officers of the department should be authorized by law to serve all criminal process in juvenile cases, when requested to do so by the court or magistrate, and also to act as probation officers when requested by the court or magistrate, and should be given the custody of the child during the whole or any part of the term of the probation, and should further be authorized at any time during the period of probation to take the child without warrant and surrender him or her to the court or magistrate by whom the probation is allowed. These last suggestions are made with a view to allow a child to be committed to the

care of the department of children for an indeterminate period thus avoiding the necessity, which has heretofore often occurred, of committing a child guilty of a small offense to one of the State institutions or to the State board of lunacy and charity during his or her minority.

We also recommend that juvenile offenders under 12 years of age, who, as the law stands at present, can not be committed to a jail, house of correction, or to the State workhouse for nonpayment of a fine, may be committed to the care and supervision of the department for children for a term not exceeding thirty days. It is easy to see, as the law stands at present, that such children practically go unpunished, and we believe that supervision such as that suggested might have a desirable effect.

We further recommend that children under 14 years of age, who are held as witnesses should not be committed to a jail, but should be given into the custody of the department for children until such time as he or she is needed to give his or her testimony. This will be the case where a child is unable to furnish bail for examination or trial. (See St. 1882, c. 127, § 2; 1886, c. 101, § 4.)

More good can be done to juvenile offenders by proper intervention at the time when the question first arises of what shall be done with them than at any other period of their career. This question originates before some court or magistrate of the Commonwealth before whom the children are brought, to be disposed of as is thought proper under the law. Great care should be had to have proper officers representing the department for children at every such hearing, in order that they may investigate into the antecedents of each child brought before the court or magistrate, and be able to advise fully as to his or her future disposition.

THE PROBLEM IN INDIANA.

The legislation proposed by the committee follows in all essentials that adopted in the State of New York and that already in force or recommended in the State of Massachusetts. The Indiana Board of State Charities, in their report of October 31, 1896, recommend to the legislature that the children now in the 38 county orphan asylums of that State be placed in suitable homes. The report says:

A very large majority of the children in orphan asylums remain in those institutions several years during the most impressionable period of their lives. During the years when they would most profit from the advantages of real home life they are held in institutions where they can not be taught those principles of industry which are necessary to useful citizenship. Some method should be adopted by the State which would expeditiously and carefully gather up these neglected children and place them into homes of honest and industrious families, where they could and would receive the benefits of the common schools, training in industry, and all the influences which fit a child to mingle with his fellows independently and successfully. To accomplish this the State need not incur heavy expense. It is only necessary to formulate some plan which will embrace the conditions which exist throughout the entire State and which will give the helpless wards of the various communities the assurance of the State that they are to have a fair opportunity in life. It should be constantly borne in mind that no public institution, however efficiently and carefully managed, can give to a child the natural surroundings and conditions necessary to its proper development.

In Minnesota and Michigan, the system of officially taking up children, training them for home life, and then placing them in homes has been carried on for many years with economical and in every way satisfactory results.

DIVISION OF THE WORK.

The care of dependent children naturally divides itself into three parts:

(a) The taking up of children.

(b) The retention of the children to be supported by the public. (c) The placing out of children.

The taking up of children.-In the District of Columbia, children become a public charge through the intervention of the agent of the Board of Children's Guardians, the agent of the Humane Society, and the various boards of admission to those asylums that receive public moneys. In the case of the Board of Children's Guardians, a judicial investigation is held to determine the question of dependency, the agents of the board merely being used as an instrumentality for bringing to light cases in which authoritative examination is necessary. In the case of the agent of the Humane Society (an officer of the police department detailed for the work of the society but paid by the District), the law under which children are taken up by him provides explicitly for a judicial investigation; but the law is constantly violated.1 In the hearings before the committee, this testimony was given by the agent of the Humane Society:

We

Representative PITNEY. What is the system of work of the Humane Society? Mr. PRATT. Officer Wilson will explain it. He can do it better than I can. receive nothing from the Government. We are supported entirely by donations, by memberships, and by the fines collected in the police court; that is, in the case of animals. Mr. Wilson is the officer who attends to this work, and he will answer any questions.

Senator MCMILLAN. You are connected with the police force?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. I am a police officer, detailed as agent of the society. Applications are made to me by the parent or guardian of dependent children to obtain admission for their children to the different homes. I investigate the cases and make application to the home for admission.

Representative PITNEY. How long have you been engaged in that work?

Mr. WILSON. I was detailed in 1890. My predecessor, Officer O'Neil, was detailed soon after the passage of the law, in 1885. I think he was detailed in 1886.

Representative PITNEY. Can you give us a statement of just what relation the work of your society bears to the other charitable work, and especially child-caring work, in the District of Columbia?

Mr. WILSON. The class of children with whom we have to deal are usually those of parents who have formerly been in better circumstances and have become reduced, possibly through getting dismissed or not being able to find employment, or something of that sort; and very often the father has deserted the children, or the father is dead. Some of them are complete orphans.

Representative PITNEY. What authority do you have over a child when you get it? Does the law confer authority?

Mr. WILSON. No, sir.

Representative PITNEY. What do you do with a child?

Mr. WILSON. We merely act as an agent for getting it admission into a home. Representative PITNEY. What home?

1 See act of February 11, 1885.

Mr. WILSON. Any home.

Representative PITNEY. Into an institution?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir.

Representative PITNEY. Do you place children out in private homes?

Mr. WILSON. No, sir.

Representative PITNEY. Not at all?

Mr. WILSON. In some cases we do, but it is seldom.

Representative PITNEY.

*

*

And now, while you are here, I should like to

hear from yon a statement as to how you are guided in your action as to the institution in which you put a child, etc. How do you know where to put it? What rules do you follow?

Mr. WILSON. Most of the applicants prefer some particular home.

Representative PITNEY. Most of the applicants prefer it?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir; the parents or the guardians prefer some particular home. A great many of them prefer the Industrial School, a good many the Washington City Orphan Asylum, and so on.

Representative PITNEY. What do you do with a child who has no parent or guardian, and who is not old enough to have any discretion about the matter?

Mr. WILSON. I choose the home myself. I make application to some particular home. I have to make application for the admission of a child at the regular board meeting.

Representative PITNEY. What are the expenses of your work?

Mr. WILSON. There is no expense attached to it. I am paid by the Metropolitan police department $90 a month.

Representative PITNEY.

*

*

*

This law gives the Humane Society two different branches of work; first, the prevention of cruelty to children; second, the commitment under adjudication of the police court, to an orphan asylum or other public charitable institution.

I do not understand what authority of law you have for this general sort of work which you seem to be carrying on, of picking up children who are proper subjects for commitment to charitable institutions and putting them there.

Mr. WILSON. I do not know that there is any law for it, but we have always thought it was a good work to be engaged in.

Representative NORTHWAY. You have enlarged the statute.

Representative PITNEY. Here there seems to be a police officer detailed for a special work, possibly with the best of motives, but it is a loose way of doing busi

Representative NORTHWAY. Do you take children and dispose of them withont consulting the officers of the Humane Society?

Mr. WILSON. The parents come and make application to me.

Representative NORTHWAY. And you dispose of the children without consulting the society at all?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. It would take too long to call a meeting of the board in each case.

In every community where the question of dependent children has been investigated, the root of the difficulty has been found in the desire of the parents to be relieved of the care of their offspring until such time comes as the children may become of an age to be useful about the house. It would be difficult, however, to find another case like that of this District, where the Government itself furnishes the direct agency for violating its own laws and for adding to the public burdens the support in institutions of children who are in no real sense dependent. During 1896 the agent of the Humane Society turned over to the S. Rep. 700————3

Board of Children's Guardians 16 children who were either picked up in the streets or were taken from their parents or guardians on account of ill usage. These children were regularly committed to the board by the courts. Besides these, 134 children were placed in the various asylums, presumbly at the request of their parents. Of this number 33 were taken to the Industrial Home School, 4 to the National Association for Colored Women and Children, and 7 to the Reform School for Boys, where they were maintained wholly at public expense. The remainder were placed in institutions receiving Government aid, excepting 18 that were placed at the Washington Orphan Asylum and 2 at St. Vincent's, institutions privately maintained.'

It is probable that many of these were cases of real destitution, and that had the children been taken before the proper court the question of dependency would have been affirmatively settled. But, on the the other hand, it is beyond question that many children handed over to the institutions for temporary care should be maintained by their parents.

The recent experience of New York City is instructive on this point. Under the provisions of the revised constitution the rule was made by the State board of charities that no child shall be retained in any institution wholly or partly under public control, as a public charge, unless accepted as such in writing by the local poor-law authorities, and all such acceptance so made shall become void unless renewed yearly. Under this rule the cases of 8,616 children were investigated, and as a result the department of public charities declined to accept no less than 1,102 children, or about 12 per cent, whose parents were either nonresidents or were able and proper persons to support their children. In the District of Columbia, if only those children who were returned to their parents be reckoned (as not properly dependent-as evidently they were not), the saving from the exclusion of this class would result in a saving of not less than $17,700, or within $2,300 of the annual appropriation for the Board of Children's Guardians."

Again, at each of the ten child-caring institutions, wholly or in part supported at public expense, children are admitted according to rules varying with each institution. Under this system-or lack of system— there can be no uniformity and no proper examination into the condition of the needs of the applicant. Moreover, inasmuch as each institution urges the amount of its work as a measure of the appropriation it should receive there is a constant tendency to increase the number of admissions beyond the resources of the institution. This evil of overcrowding has been adverted to frequently by those who have officially visited the institutions.

The retention of children.-The Board of Children's Guardians makes

Hearings, p. 109.

2 The number of children returned to parents was 117; the average cost per child per year is taken at $100.