The investment of public funds in the real estate of the above institutions is $179,000. Notwithstanding this investment, and the appropriations for maintenance as shown above, there is no public official and no court of justice which has authority to admit or discharge a single child. Mr. WOODWARD. Mr. B. Pickman Maun, secretary of the Board of Children's Guardians, is here to make a statement in answer to the questions mentioned in the topics. Mr. MANN. Gentlemen, I will reply to the questions in their order. First. Those children should be considered dependent who have no natural guardians or legally constituted guardians, even though possessed of adequate means of livelihood; for without guardians they are without protection. The duties of the District toward such children include the obligation to provide them with legal guardians. If they be possessed, by inheritance or otherwise, with means of livelihood, such means should be used for their support and education; but if they be not so possessed, the duty of the District is to provide them with adequate support, care, and training, so that they may become healthful, moral, and useful citizens; for upon the character of its future citizens depends the welfare of the people. As a mere matter of econ omy in a pecuniary sense, it is better to bear the cost of the proper rearing of citizens than to incur the burdens of maintaining protective, reformatory, and punitive institutions for such as by neglect may become paupers, misdemeanants, or confirmed criminals in advanced life. Second. The government (the District) owes a duty to all children, as to its other citizens, that they be protected from abuse even by their natural or legal guardians. Where the relation between children and their care takers is not that of legal guardianship much stricter care should be exercised by the government, and much less liberty allowed to the exercise of discretion on the part of the care takers than in case of the relation between children and their legal or natural guardians. Therefore supervision should be exercised by the government over children not officially declared dependent, whether in homes or institutions, and for practical reasons, drawn from experience, such supervision should be exercised particularly over children placed in institutions. No institution should be allowed to claim exemption from governmental supervision, whether it be partially or not at all aided by public funds or endowed with legal power under public charters or be entirely vol untary in its character. Third. The duty of the Government toward dependent children being established, the Government itself should determine what children are to be classed as objects of its care in the various aspects in which that care is to be given. No children should be regarded as dependent without careful and authoritative determination of the question of their status, which determination is impracticable in its most adequate sense without recourse to judicial inquiry and decision. The courts alone have power to elicit that full information which is requisite to a proper determination of the status of the citizen. In all cases, therefore, in which the dependency of the children is in question, the question should be determined by the courts. Guardianship, if adjudged proper to be conferred, should be made full and effective, and to last during the minority or legal incompetency of the ward; otherwise, upon the termination of such guardianship, the child will find itself unprotected and without legal rights. Fourth. Children differ so greatly in natural qualities as well as in the effects of their environment upon them that no uniform rule, based upon age, education, nor moral condition, can be laid down for their training. This should be determined in every individual case by the character and abilities of the child. It should, therefore, be left to a competent tribunal for decision. Fifth. As in regard to the previous question, so in regard to this-the needs of the individual should be considered, rather than the execution of any stated rule. Sixth. Institutions having to a large extent an established character and a uniformity, within each, of methods and discipline need supervision mainly along general lines; but the homes of the people are so various that constant and vigilant special supervision should be exercised over children placed in them. Mrs. H. F. B. MACFARLAND. As to the administrative fund of the Board of Children's Guardians, I think it should be put in the control of the board to use as is best in their judgment. I do not think that the salary of the agent should be limited by the law; the board should have some leeway. The chairman spoke of putting the children in the institutions, as I understood him. They probably could be, but that is not the only point. If we had an institution of our own, it would be very much better. We could work along those lines which we believe to be wisest. I do not think we want just a little temporary clearinghouse. I think the Board of Children's Guardians ought to have an institution something after the fashion of the Michigan State school, perhaps not so comprehensive, but somewhat along those lines. Then in regard to the Western agency, I wish you would ask Mr. Lewis to tell you what he knows of the New York Juvenile Asylum in its work in placing children in the West and maintaining a Western agency. That is what we ought to have developed on proper lines. I think it would be a great advantage to have such an agency. Representative PITNEY. We shall be very glad to hear Mr. Lewis on that or any other topic which the board desires to present. Senator MCMILLAN. In this connection, how does the number of children here compare, for instance, with the number in Michigan or Maryland? What comparison can be made? I understand that we have in the District an unusually large number of children to be taken care of. Mr. LEWIS. The proportion of dependent children to population in the District of Columbia is 1 child to less than 400 of population. In the State of Minnesota, in the State of Michigan, and one other State, Rhode Island I believe it is, where the matter has been under State control, and placing out has been practiced for a series of years, the proportion is 1 child to 10,000 of population. Senator MCMILLAN. That is just what I thought. Mr. LEWIS. In other words, to make the comparison correct between the District of Columbia and the State of Minnesota, the District is contributing to the support of upward of 600 children at the present time. It is appropriating upward of $60,000 for the maintenance of those children. The State of Minnesota is contributing to the support of about 200 children, and is appropriating about $45,000 a year for the maintenance of the whole work. That is to say, whereas the population of the State of Minnesota is five times as great as the population of the District of Columbia, the number of children dependent upon the State for support and protection is one third. Senator MCMILLAN. I think that is a very important point. Representative PITNEY. It is. It comes close to the practical question. Senator FAULKNER. Can you give us a practical comparison-a comparison of a city against a city? What you have given is the comparison of a city against a whole State. Take city against city. Take New York, for example, or Boston, or Baltimore. That is the way to arrive at a fair comparison. Senator MCMILLAN. Take Detroit, which is about the same size, or Milwaukee, or Cleveland. Have you any statistics as to those cities? Mr. LEWIS. I can now recall only the statistics for the State of Massachusetts in comparison with some other State, which perhaps would be a fairer comparison than the one I spoke of. Take the State of Massachusetts in comparison with the State of New York, each having a great seaport with its mouth open to the world, and each handling this matter under practically the same conditions, but on radically different plans. In the State of Massachusetts the ratio of child dependents to general population is 1 to 1,100 and something, and in the State of New York it is 1 to 370. Representative PITNEY. You know they have a very much greater flood of immigration into New York. I think that must account largely, or to some extent, at least, for that variance. The character of the population in New York is very different. Senator FAULKNER. Can you make any comparison between Washington and any other city, not a State? Mr. LEWIS. I can not. Senator FAULKNER. That would be the only fair comparison. Mr. LEWIS. It is almost impossible to get statistics as to cities. Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir. Representative PITNEY. We are contributing to the support of 600 children in the District of Columbia on the ground of dependency, or some other grounds. Is there any method by which we can find out how many children are really dependent, and are really and properly the subject of public charge? Mr. LEWIS. No, sir; there is not. Representative PITNEY. Is there anybody who can tell what is the extent of the charitable work which should strictly and properly be done here? Mr. LEWIS. No one can tell, so far as I know. Representative PITNEY. You can not do it without putting into operation some weeding out process, and finding out how it works? Mr. LEWIS. That is the only way I know of. I was asked to speak of the Western agency, maintained by the New York Juvenile Asylum. The home of the agency is at Englewood, Ill. The New York Juvenile Asylum forty years ago established the Western agency and began sending children to the State of Illinois to be there placed out. It has maintained the agency ever since, and the number of children sent West has averaged about one hundred a year. The work has never excited any special opposition in the State of Illinois, for the reason, in the first place, that it has been very carefully done, and, in the second place, there has always been a resident agent there on the ground who attended to it and to whom all complaints and transfers and returns were referred. For instance, if a child became unruly and undesirable in the home in which it had been placed, it was only necessary to refer the matter to Mr. Wright, the resident agent, who took charge of the child and took it to the receiving station at Englewood, where it was taken care of. The child was not allowed to be driven into the poorhouse or one of the reformatory institutions of the State of Illinois. It is regarded by persons throughout the country who are informed as to matters of this kind as an extraordinarily successful experiment. The expenses of the Western agency, which now has on its rolls and under its guardianship about 4,000 children, is less than $5,000 a year. That sum takes care of 4,000 children under guardianship of the asylum in Illinois, and it takes care of all returns and transfers, and furnishes new homes for the 100 children sent West every year. Representative PITNEY. Do they not pay anything for maintenance in the homes? Mr. LEWIS. No; they are all free homes. Senator MCMILLAN. How do you find out about the homes? Mr. LEWIS. In this case I went myself to the place and stayed there forty-eight hours with the superintendent. I talked the matter over with him, and I also visited the institution in New York. Senator MCMILLAN. I mean ordinarily, when you want homes for children, how do you ascertain the facts as to them? Representative PITNEY. Senator, do you mean private homes? Mr. LEWIS. Every institution that makes it known widely that it has children who can be secured will be practically overwhelmed with applications for them. That has been the history of every one of which I have had any knowledge. It has been the history of the Board of Children's Guardians. In the summer of 1893 when the Board of Children's Guardians begun its work in the city of Washington, notices were placed for four weeks on Saturday of each week in four papers, two in Washington, one in Baltimore, and one church paper. That is all the advertising the board has ever done. There never has been a week since that day that it has not had on hand from 70 to 150 applications for children. Representative NORTHWAY. You investigate the family, I suppose, so as to know whether it is a proper place for the child? Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir. I wish to make one other suggestion in regard to the increase of the appropriation for the administrative expenses of the board. There is a very small deficit in the administrative fund-less than $50. There is a surplus of $2,400 in the fund for the care of children. If it could be done, and if it seemed a wise thing to do, simply to remove the bar to the transfer from one of those funds to another, nothing additional need be appropriated. There is money enough. The only difficulty is that it is not properly distributed. For instance, if the board had authority to use all of its appropriations for such purposes as might be necessary, it would go through the year with a small surplus. Representative NORTHWAY. Now the appropriation is made for a specific object, and you are not permitted to use it for any other purpose? Mr. LEWIS. That is true. With the present arrangement we return about $3,000 to the Treasury. The work required to be done will not be done for the reason that there is not enough money appropriated for the specific purpose. Mr. JOHN F. Cook. At first it was $6,000. Mr. LEWIS. It was $5,000. That was sufficient, and $600 was returned to the Treasury. But that was the initial year. Representative NORTHWAY. The amount usually returned to the Treasury had better be expended in traveling expenses, in investigating homes, etc. Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir; by far. Mr. WOODWARD. The committee understands how this money is expended; that we have to provide vouchers, and all that. Senator MCMILLAN. Oh, yes. On the schedule of hearings I find "Officers of the National Association for the Relief of Destitute Colored Women and Children." Is there anyone representing that associa tion who desires to be heard? STATEMENT OF JOHN F. COOK. Mr. Cook. Dr. Purvis was here, but had to leave. I am one of the trustees of that institution. The officers and managers are ladies, some of whom are here. Senator MCMILLAN. You have made a report? Mr. Cook. Yes, sir; we have made a report. Senator MCMILLAN. Do you wish to add anything to that report? Mr. Cook. I do not know of anything that we need add, except as to the questions submitted in your printed statement as to the capacity, etc., of the institution. Senator MCMILLAN. That information your report gives. Mr. Cook. Possibly it may. I have not seen the report lately. I have some data with me, but if it is covered by the report it is not necessary for me to take up your time. I am willing to answer any questions which members of the committee may desire to ask. I will state, in respect to one matter which has been suggested by what was said by Mr. Woodward as to the number of children taken from the Board of Children's Guardians, that at the present time we have only five, and that the rule of taking children at 10 years of age and keeping them until 12 has been a standing regulation of the institution for some time. It was not action taken to forestall Senator MCMILLAN. That is your regular law on the subject? Mr. Cook. It is a regulation of the home. We have about 100 children at present and 10 old women. The home is said to be able to accommodate about 100 or 110 children annually. Representative NORTHWAY. What is the name of your association? Mr. Cook. The National Home for the Relief of Destitute Colored Women and Children. We have had some older children sent by the Board of Children's Guardians, and they have proved rather detrimental to the home, containing such a number of younger children, and therefore in a measure we have had to insist upon that rule-not in antagonism to the Board of Children's Guardians, but more as a protection to the children we have there. Representative NORTHWAY. You apply the same rule to children from the Board of Children's Guardians that you do in any other instance? Mr. Cook. Yes, sir. Representative PITNEY. Do you place out children? Mr. Cook. Yes, sir. Mr. MANN. I understood Mr. Lewis to say that the Board of Children's Guardians had been notified that the Colored Home would not receive children over 10 years of age. Mr. Cook says the limit there now is 12 years. Mr. Cook. It is so short a time between 10 and 12 years that there may be an error on my part, but that is our rule of action. Senator MCMILLAN. What do you do with these children? Mr. Cook. We seek homes for them and place them in as good homes as we can possibly get. |