NINTH STATE CONFERENCE OF CHARITIES. material right along. The worthy gentleman who read to us to-day was an importation from Michigan, and as he is a State officer we must regard him as a dependent, not child, but man; and as no one for a moment has any thought of being desirous of being rid of this kind of material, we may expect that other material of possibly similar value may be obtained also. It is my pleasure as I go around through the State to see some children who have been brought by these Eastern societies, which have placed the children without as much care as they ought to exercise, and who have grown to admirable citizenship. However, I agree most heartily in the belief that it is the duty of the State Board of Charities and Corrections to exercise the utmost care, the most rigid supervision, of those who are placing children not only of other States but of our own. CAPTAIN C. E. FAULKNER, Minneapolis: I am also in hearty accord with the statements expressed in the paper, both for the reason that the children may be comfortably provided for with good homes, and also for the business reason or commercial reason, that the State may he saved from expense and distress consequent upon the importation of undesirable children. But there is another thought in connection with dealing with children which I would lay some emphasis upon, and which looks to greater care, greater conservatism in dealing with children in removing them from natural surroundings. I believe, sir, that so far as human skill may accomplish that result, the rehabilitation of the natural home life is the duty of society always, and not to be prejudiced by seemingly unfavorable conditions such as an intemperate parent. I believe that there is such a thing, sir, as receiving a child under public care and making that child a missionary for the reclamation of the father or the mother. I believe that some of the best examples which we have of institution work or society work may be shown with this result; that children after fair training have been used to awaken in the parent who has been negligent and careless and indifferent a new desire for the establishment of a home and the reassumption of the duty of providing for their own. That was my experience in Kansas, where I had charge of a soldiers' orphans' home, so called because the soldiers' children had the first right of admission, and then other children came in. We were situated within about twenty-four miles of the great home established by the government, the National Home for Soldiers. As a result of that I had an opportunity to witness a very curious exemplification of what might be done in the way of reëstablishing home life. I had many children whose fathers were in the National Home for Soldiers who had given up, thrown up the battle of life in discouragement, and felt that they no longer could care for their children or for themselves. Many of them were intemperate; many of them had small pensions which were wasted in riotous living when they would get away from the home; yet those men had an affectionate interest in their children, they would visit them at stated periods. As time went on these children grew and began to show something of what they could do in the way of schooling, and the fathers became interested in them, became proud of them. Then came the time for me to appeal to them. Why not make an effort to save more of your money, why not make one more effort to put a roof over your boy or over your girl? And I succeeded, sir, in getting many men, who otherwise would have made no effort whatever, to start out to get their boys and girls and reëstablish home life. That was an object lesson to me; it made a deep impression upon me; it was a peculiarly fortunate opportunity; such combinations seldom occur, but it led me to think. Why can't this be done in many other instances where society finds that a father or a mother is indifferent or worthless? Why give it up? Why not give closer attention and harder work towards trying to reclaim the father and the mother through the influence of the boy or the girl and reestablish the home life? For that reason I am becoming more and more opposed to these societies which take a boy or a girl from their natural birthplace and transport them hundreds and hundreds of miles across the country, where all memory of home and father and mother will be destroyed. I am opposed to it. everything can be accomplished in the way that it should be done, and that believe, sir, in the rehabilitation of home life, where society should not interfere except in cases where there can be no other alternative. MR. BRUBAKER, Northfield: I would like to hear somebody say what is good care and supervision of children placed as they are placed when brought from outside. SUPT. MERRILL: I think the agency should be required to visit the children at least once a year-oftener if necessary. Children who are doing well in the homes in which they have been placed need not be visited oftener than once a year. I think the child-placing agency should know exactly the conditions in the homes, the advantages the children are getting, and that they gain this information through personal visits to the homes and to the children by representatives of the society that place the children. SECRETARY JACKSON: I am asked to enquire, What shall be done with the undesirable child? Recognizing that the desirable child may be readily placed in a home which investigation and supervision shall prove to be satisfactory, what of the undesirable child? CAPTAIN FAULKNER: That is a very difficult question to answer. What is an undesirable child? It depends upon the standpoint of the judge. One family home might say, "This child is not desirable for us;" the next door neighbor might say, "That is the very child we want." There are no undesirable children. There is always some kind of home to fit the kind of child there is to place, unless it is a feeble-minded child, or one of such inefficient character as to be unfit for home life, or a cripple, and these should be sheltered in special institutions. But there should be a place for every child. I think the children will average well up, no matter how undesirable they may be, with the character of the home. REV. FATHER COMISKEY: The reason I asked the question was because I understood, after listening to Mr. Merrill's paper, that he was in favor of restricting the importation of dependent children, and he would admit the desirable children. Now I ask, in this Christian work, What are we going to do with the undesirable children? If we are going to admit the good ones for the reason that they will make good citizens in the future, what are we going to do with the undesirable, those who are not good boys and girls? PRESIDENT FOLWELL: That is a question which ought not to go unan swered. SECRETARY JACKSON: I had hoped that Mr. Merrill would answer. The answer in my judgment is that if you hold people to their responsibility you will have improved the conditions, because you will have shown them the difficulties, and naturally they will attempt to correct them. If New York State can send on to us all its undesirable children, Minnesota may have the undesirable class of New York State largely to care for. If New York State takes care of its own foundlings it will soon learn to appreciate the conditions and will endeavor to correct them in New York, and not turn the responsibility off on to Minnesota. If the little lame boys that are hard to place in any given State should be thrown on to Minnesota, and then if they shall decide to throw on to Minnesota the undesirable class from half a dozen other States, we will be swamped. You must hold States to some sort of local responsibility. Minnesota should care for its own undesirable children in its Christian homes,-there is no question about that,but we can't be held responsible for the care of the undesirable children of the United States; and we are thus liable, except there be some provision for restricting their importation. I would like to state one thing further that I think Mr. Merrill was not cognizant of. At the last meeting of the State Board of Corrections and Charities the number who should be imported in any one year was reduced to one hundred. That was tentative. Before there was no limit. Two hundred and seventy-six were in six months brought from one organization. It seemed more than could properly be absorbed, putting them in carefully selected homes. It is no small task carefully to select the home, as proven by the fact that Mr. Merrill throws out-what is it you throw out, Mr. Merrill? NINTH STATE CONFERENCE OF CHARITIES. MR. MERRILL: Last year 55 per cent of the applications for children were rejected. SECRETARY JACKSON: They threw out more than half of their applications, and that is on the basis of an understanding all through the com munity that only the selected ones will apply. It was not a miscellaneous application. It is understood that only the selected homes can obtain children, and then they are obliged to throw out more than half the applications. Now, we can't know that a home is all right unless it be carefully supervised. You can't know that a child is a respectable child to have in the community. Even if you are careful, you understand you will get in more or less desirable ones; that will be understood. But that we ought not to receive those who are prima facie even in childhood defective is a principle that is adopted in many of the States and is being adopted in many more. Now, there may be twenty-five received in this quarter. There have been during this year, so far as we know, only three or four received. Why there haven't been more, I don't know, MR. FAULKNER: While Mr. Jackson is on his feet I want to ask this question, whether he has ever communicated with the officers of the New York Children's Aid Society about the removal of any children who might be found undesirable, without any expense whatever to the State of Minnesota? Whether you have ever had any communication with the officers of that society? SECRETARY JACKSON: I will have to make an explanation in order to fairly answer your question. My predecessor went into an investigation sixteen years ago of the methods adopted and the results of placing children by the New York Children's Aid Society in Minnesota, and the mere statement of the fact was such that they didn't place any more children here for years; in fact up to this date they have placed few. So it has not been within my province to call their attention to anything. You see in sixteen years those children have grown to maturity and I have not known of them. When this subject was before the legislature two years ago, representatives from several parts of the State spoke of children being imported into their community. Each one of them said that the importation of dependent children in their community was bad for the community and not always good for the child. CAPT, FAULKNER: Now, Mr. President, I want to say that New York has reformed. At the time of which the gentleman speaks New York did those things; they sent children out indiscriminately and without supervision. But in recent years they have reformed. If they have not placed an agent in the State of Minnesota with authority to take up every child who has been found by the authorities to be undesirable and return it to New York at their risk and expense, then they have failed to do what they are doing in the surrounding States. In Kansas I had occasion to investigate that matter, and their attorney gave me the names of certain children they had sent, and stated to me they would promptly remove any child that was found to be undesirable. And I want to say in justice to this society, that under public pressure and because of the opposition of the States to the importation of the New York children, they have reformed. They have established a farm home, for instance, outside, where children may be kept temporarily, and then they have, as I say, undertaken to remove from each State, on the complaint of any State official, any boy or girl placed by them who is found to be undesirable. Now we should say that much in justice to the New York Society. So that I am sure if any cripple or any undesirable child comes in under the auspices of that society they will promptly put up the money for its return and assume all proper care of it. I don't know anything about any other societies, but I want to say that much in justice to the New York Society. MR. JACKSON: They have no agency in Minnesota; neither have they many children here. CAPTAIN FAULKNER: Well, if they are placing any here I will say that for them-that they will undertake to do that. 23 POORHOUSE MANAGEMENT. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Jackson did not make the statement which he might have made with reference to this very matter. While it was found a year or more ago that the New York Society had sent its agents into one or two places in this State-Dodge Center for instance--and children had been placed out, immediately Mr. Jackson telegraphed to the New York Children's Aid Society, after they had announced that they had the purpose in view to place more, calling their attention to the law of our State, and stating that it must be respected. Upon that they withdrew their announcement to place children in this State, and I think they have not done so since then. Mr. Jackson's native modesty prevented his giving expression to this service that he has rendered the State. In some of the States, as it is well known, legislation practically prohibitory has been passed, notably in the State of Michigan. I think it is the law of Michigan, or was at least a very short time since, that no dependent child could be introduced into the State by any institution without the deposit of a bond of a thousand dollars conditioned for the proper care of that child. That is practically prohibitory. I do not know of any other State in the Union that has legislation that is as stringent as that of Michigan. However, I think that most of the Western States that have passed any legislation upon the subject are much more rigid than our own is in its requirements as to the bonds. It seems to me that ours is perfectly reasonable-that a bond of a thousand dollars shall be filed by the institution that places a child in the State from abroad for the proper care of any child, not for each child, but for any of the children, and this seems to be perfectly reasonable, and certainly we cannot expect less than this. MR. J. H. RICH, Red Wing: Mr. President, the State of Minnesota, through her state public school, provides machinery for caring for and placing the dependent children of our own state. In doing that they get experience and information as to what are desirable homes which want children and the kind of children that are required. Bringing dependent children into this state, why should not they be passed through that school and let those in charge pass upon what is desirable, cull them out at that institution, and return such children as are found not to be desirable to be brought into the state. Taking it on the basis of the status of the family, I don't think any father would allow outsiders to come in and place children in his family. We have got to look upon the state institution as taking the place of the parent, so far as dependent children are concerned, and it should say what are desirable children to be brought to this state and placed in the families of this state. I have always advocated, as a member of the State Board of Corrections and Charities, that no child should be allowed to be placed in a home in this state that was not first placed in the Public School of Minnesota, and by it placed in the proper home. I do not advocate the keeping out of desirable children from other states that cannot find homes in those states if we have the room in this state to absorb them. Yet we want first to take care of our own dependent children. If we have surplus room for children let them be placed through the proper channel, which I claim is our State Public School. POORHOUSE MANAGEMENT. BY MRS. J. L. HENDRY, MATRON RAMSEY COUNTY POORHOUSE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have been induced to write a paper on the above subject, both from a desire to help those young in the care of these people, and to give a little of my experience of twelve years of constant care and management. The "almshouse" (not poorhouse, as the latter is suggestive of the adage, "Leave hope behind all those who enter in") is solely for the care of that MITH STATE CONFERENCE OF CHARITIES. La A penje mos are stable to care for themedres, whether professionali vy mes laid down, as in prisons or other pecal institutions, but by 80CAR WA. This rizs of pecpie vanot be cared for or I 2nd that indulgence of sleep in their bedrooms in the daytime. also the Soda and wilch is not conducive to the health of the institution, must be tion of dnbing and various other things that a pauper always pralused, and the rule strictly enforced. The question is often asked. What do you do with man and wife? The mua be wanted entirely. In our institution there are no single domi turies, and were they allowed companionship it would cause jealousy and te lang otters. There should be a complete separation of the sexes VAL in dining and living rooms. For cleanliness I prefer straw ticks and blankets instead of mattresses Inmates time must be employed as much as possible. Our people work of the farm, in the outbuildings, and doing light work inside; but they are not allowed in the kitchen. In winter they work in the root cellar, sorting OTET Tegetables. It is a very hard matter to keep the women employed, as they are for the most part feeble and have poor eyesight, with all sorts of imaginary diseases; so they mend and patch for themselves, as their sewing is not satisfactory to me. Almshouses should not be constructed more than two stories high, as it is very hard to get old and decrepit people to climb two flights of stairs, and if able to do so they should be debarred from the almshouse. substantial and well cooked, and its essentials will be stereotyped. For the bill of fare: Breakfast.- Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday: Bread and butter, po- tatoes, coffee. coffee. Dinner Monday and Saturday: Boiled corned beef, cabbage, potatoes. Sunday: In winter-Baked beans, pickles, potatoes. In summer— Bread and milk or tea for dinner each day. Hupper. Monday, Wednesday and Friday: Fried potatoes, tea, bread, syrup. Not forgetting feast days-Thanksgiving and Christmas. Luxury in the way of tobacco is allowed, a sack or plug weekly, with the privilege of raising some for themselves, a privilege which is highly appreciated, and they will labor early and late to outdo each other much more than if you asked them to do some necessary work. Such is a pauper-"always trying to get something for nothing." I believe in systematic discipline in running an institution, each day having its own work and ready for inspection at any time. One of the most disagreeable, and at the same time necessary, duties is |