The first list of endorsed societies was published in 1912, and the list has been published annually since that time. The endorsement covers a period of twelve months extending from November 30th to November 30th. The certificate of endorsement is made in the following form: No...I.. This is to Certify That THE CHICAGO ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE has investigated SPRINGDALE HOSPITAL AND DISPENSARY. The Committee believes it to be worthy the support of those who desire to further its aims. ...... ...(Signed) HENRY STEWART ... Secretary, Subscriptions Investigating Committee. This Endorsement Nov. 30, 1914, Nov. 30, 1915. The Bearer, whose signature appears below, is authorized to solicit funds for this or Payment by check to the order of the organization is recommended.1 Each year seven or eight thousand copies of the endorsed list are sent out to people who may be interested in charitable work. The most of them are of course distributed in the city of Chicago. Humane societies are grouped under class 6, as reform and civic-betterment organizations. For the period ending November 30th, 1915, the committee placed its stamp of approval upon the Anti-Cruelty Society and the Illinois Humane Society. The State Society for the Prevention of Cruelty was not in existence at the time the list was published. The value of such a system of endorsement is clear. Very 1 Stamped across the certificate, the following: "This endorsement expires November 30, 1915. often philanthropists are at a loss to know whether organizations asking their help are trustworthy and will make wise use of moneys which they might receive. The certificate of the Subscriptions Investigatng Committee of the Association of Commerce is at least prima facie evidence that the applicant is worthy of support. Such a certificate, however, will not necessarily turn contributions into any particular channel, and it is not likely that the endorsement of the committee will bring any material increase in donations to the humane societies. In other words, although the certificate of endorsement gives the humane societies a good standing and assures contributors of their worthiness, it does not solve the problem which we have found in Illinois. If the work in the outlying districts is to be done by existing organizations. some means must be devised to increase their income for this particular purpose. If this is impracticable, then some other agency must be discovered to carry out the work. Such an agency would need an assured income, which means either a large endowment or a regular and generous appropriation by the state legislature. It is doubtful whether a state bureau organized merely for the purpose of carrying on humane work in the neglected counties would fit in with the present scheme of things. The dignity of a state board would almost necessarily demand a state-wide jurisdiction with powers of control over all existing humane organizations. To what extent a proper co-operation between such a board and these societies could be secured, is problematical. It is possible that the creation of a state humane bureau with state-wide jurisdiction would in the minds of some people remove the necessity for the existence of private humane societies and would thereby result in such a diminution of revenue as to cause their abandonment. Such a move would surely meet with strenuous opposition, since the two leading organizations of the state, and especially the Illinois Humane Society, are old, established institutions. If it were desirable to make a state department of humane work, a logical procedure under the circumstances would be to follow the example of Colorado and constitute one of the existing societies the state bureau. Here again a difficulty would be encountered, for the friends of the two leading societies would naturally desire to have this honor bestowed upon their respective organizations. If a merger could be accomplished and all the agencies working for the prevention of cruelty could be consolidated, the matter would be greatly simplified. Unfortunately, rivalry between humane societies is almost as keen as that found in the field of commercial enterprise. The origin and historical relations of the Chicago societies would argue against the possibility of such a consolidation, but much of the unfriendliness formerly manifested has disappeared and today the societies have been able to work together with a certain degree of co-operation. Consequently, it is to be hoped that if the formation of a state department should seem wise an arrangement could be made which would be satisfactory to all concerned. If the scheme of consolidation could not be consummated and it became necessary to select some one society to act as a state agency, the logical choice, because of age and prestige, would be the Illinois Humane Society. The writer is not prepared to argue that such a step is necessary. It is quite possible that in due time the work will be so developed as to reach all parts of the state; and if prospects of such a result can be discovered, there is no need to disturb the present arrangement. There is a slight and gradual increase in the number of societies in the state; but the chief manifestations of renewed zeal in humane work are in Chicago. The formation of the Anti-Cruelty Society, of the State Humane Association and of the State Society for the Prevention of Cruelty illustrates this fact. This is of course natural, for the city of Chicago presents the largest opportunities for such work. It can scarcely be said that Chicago is overrun by humane workers; but it would seem desirable that some of this energy be more evenly distributed throughout the state. This cannot be done unless there is some authority with power to apportion expenditures and to direct the work in every quarter. The need of some such controlling influence is felt even in New York State where well-organized societies are pretty well distributed. The need is even greater in a state where the tendency seems to be towards concentration of humane efforts in one place. II. HUMANE WORK IN COLORADO I. COLORADO HUMANE SOCIETY The Colorado Humane Society was organized in 1881 and incorporated in the same year under the general corporations law. Its policy was first to secure the passage of laws for the benefit of children and of animals, then to see to it that these laws were enforced. The usual powers necessary to these ends were conferred upon it by the legislature. The by-laws of the society provided that the directors should be chosen annually by the members, and that the officers of the society should be elected by the board of directors. For a few years the society was active and made progress; but from the outset it had been difficult to secure sufficient financial support. By 1885 the organization found itself without resources and the work dropped almost to nothing. One or two individuals thereupon determined to accomplish a reorganization and a notice was published in the newspapers calling for a meeting of those who might be interested. When the meeting was called to order fifteen were present. The business of reorganization was immediately carried out, and the fifteen persons present became the directors of the rejuvenated society. A secretary was hired and the work was prosecuted with renewed vigor. In the course of time, however, public interest again fell off, revenues decreased, and the board of directors dropped from fifteen to five. So in the winter of 1896 another reorganization became necessary, subscriptions were increased, newspapers became interested, and the society secured the co-operation of the prosecuting attorney and other public authorities. In spite of the improvement thus brought about the situation was far from satisfactory. Several branch societies had been established and volunteer agents had been appointed throughout the state; but of course the central office of the society was in Denver and practically all of the financial support for the work came from a few interested citizens of that city. Thus, although the Colorado Humane Society was a state organization designed to operate in all parts of the state, and although the branch societies in their charters granted by the state society had been given ample powers, and volunteer agents had been duly authorized to represent the society in their respective localities, as a matter of fact the lack of necessary means confined its activities almost entirely to the city of Denver. It was felt by the officers of the society that it was not a charitable or benevolent organization but an arm of the law, and as such should be supported by general taxation. Accordingly, bills were introduced in the legislatures of 1897 and 1899, designed to make the society an official state agency supported by legislative appropriations. Because of apathy, rather than active opposition, the bill each time failed to pass. Finally, in 1901, after considerable agitation, sufficient interest was aroused to secure the passage of a law constituting the Colorado Humane Society a State Bureau of Child and Animal Protection.1 2. THE STATE BUREAU OF CHILD AND ANIMAL PROTECTION The act did not change the organization of the society, nor did it in any way interfere with its internal affairs. Those are still controlled by its by-laws. The act, however, provided that the governor, the superintendent of public instruction and the attorney general should be ex-officio members of the board of directors of the bureau. It was made the duty of the bureau to secure the enforcement of the laws for the prevention of wrongs to children and dumb animals, to assist in organizing societies and appointing agents for the enforcement of laws for the prevention of such wrongs, and to promote the growth of education and sentiment favorable to the protection of children and dumb animals. It also provided that the bureau should hold annual meetings at the state capitol for the transaction of its business and the election of its officers, and for the consideration of questions relating to child and animal protection, and that the bureau should make annual reports to the secretary of state in regard to its work, which the secretary of state should publish in pamphlet form and distribute to certain of the state and county officers, newspapers, and state and educational institutions. It also pro 'Laws of 1901, Chapter 84. |