A year later she inquired whether the boys and girls still had the toys she had given them. When the matron said that most of them were destroyed or worn out, this philanthropic person remarked that it was astonishing how destructive the children at the Home were. Her three children had started the playthings on the road to ruin and fifty institutional children had finished their work. Yet the fifty, in the eyes of this woman, were abnormal. This idea that institutional children are a race apart is as rampant inside the institutions as it is on the outside. The superintendent of one of the largest Homes in the State remarked to the brother of an eight-year old boy who had run away, "No, you can not go to find him. If he does not know enough to appreciate a good home like this, let him go." In creating community spirit one must not overlook this pernicious idea that dependent children, by some strange power, are endowed automatically with a new set of instincts when they enter the portal of an institution and that to act like normal children thereafter is a crime against their benefactors. Some time in the future of the Children's Welfare Department of the Board of State Charities is going to have a working force of sufficient size to enable it to do some practical demonstrating. Visits to institutions will be less hurried than under the present system and the criticism that it is a simple matter to suggest but a different thing to do, can be more successfully combated. The Department believes it would be safe to wager that children could be trained to say grace without presaging the service with the ringing of a bell; that soap and water and sunshine used in large quantities would destroy the usual institutional "smell;" that boys and girls could be made to clean their teeth at least once a day; and that the right kind of recreation would reduce the problems of discipline. This is said in no spirit of boasting but from the standpoint that institutional children can be treated in the same manner that one treats children in family homes. Throughout the state of Ohio there are child-caring institutions which are sick. Some of them are only slightly indisposed, while for others death would be the most merciful thing that could happen. The Board of State Charities is the doctor and the Ohio legislature says this Board must make diagnosis and suggest remedies whether its services are desired or not. The Children's Welfare Department, to whom this work is assigned, is trying to make its patients understand that the motive back of all of its acivities is service. Its aim is to have every institution in the State realize that the Board is not a policeman, but a physician. This is the Children's Year. It is the first time in the history of the world that such a concerted effort has been made to conserve the child life of the nation. War has made us realize the necessity of such a measure. Our normal dependent children have within them possibilities for useful, self-respecting lives. The problem of every social worker in the country is to see that they get a fair chance. This means that the sick institutions must be given effective treatment in order that they may recover promptly and be able to do their full duty. In Ohio the Board of State Charities, M. D., is on the trail of all indisposed HOMES. The medicine which it prescribes may be unpleasant and its surgery may be painful. But if the treatment makes it more possible for the dependent children of the state to live the sort of lives which God intended all little children to enjoy, this Board will feel that its existence has been justified. SUPPORT DEPARTMENT The General Assembly in 1910 enacted what is commonly known as the "Pay Patient Law," requiring the Board of State Charities to make an investigation of the estates of patients in various state hospitals to ascertain whether such estates could reasonably be charged with the expense of maintenance of the patients. Certain relatives are also held to be liable for like maintenance. This law was put into effect on August 15, 1910, and to properly administer this administrative function the Board created the Support Department. J. D. Holmes was appointed Agent, who still has charge of this special service. Originally there were five assistant agents or field investigators. This staff was reduced later to three persons and now consists of F. W. Evans, S. E. Snepp. and J. W. Stephenson, who have been with the department since its establishment. The clerical staff consists of John McMullen, Chief Clerk, T. S. Vaughn, Accountant, and Alice M. Guisinger, Typist. The immediate direction of the department is under a special committee of the Board, consisting of Rufus C. Burton and Rev. William A. Hale. Under the original act the results of the investigations were certified to the institutions and the collections were made by them. This proved so unsatisfactory to all concerned that the superintendents unanimously requested that the law be changed so that the collections be made by the department, so that the management of the institutions would not know anything about the classifications of patients, so far as their support is concerned. In 1915 several important amendments were enacted. The method of collection was again changed so as to relieve the department from any financial responsibility and requiring the treasurer of state, after proper certification, to be responsible for collecting the amounts certified. Another amendment provided that in case of the Institution for the FeebleMinded those not supported by relatives or guardians should be paid for by the county from which received. This is really a change of a former law which required this work to be done by the officials of the institution. Another act provided that inmates could be received at the State Sanatorium without the payment of the usual weekly fee if the Board of State Charities, after investigation, recommended that this be done. Such cases are likewise charged to the counties from which patients were received. The revenues received from the Support Department during the last three years and since the beginning of the act appear in the table below. The cost of conducting this Department has been less than three per cent of the amount received by the state. RECORD OF RECEIPTS BY STATE OF OHIO FOR THE Support of INMATES IN Totals.... 28,160 24 $1,120,388 24 $ 487,110 42 $ 442,146 41 $462,741 73 $2,512,386 80 *Paid by individuals $14,472.93; balance paid by counties. 218,196 53*231,936 71 1,026,532 84 THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PAY Ever since the enactment of the Pay Patient Law a few attorneys have contended that the act was unconstitutional, while most persons effected by the act have cheerfully yielded to its provision. It was finally decided by the Attorney-General to make a test case in the matter of the maintenance of John W. Young, received from Knox County and maintained for a number of years at the Columbus State Hospital. On May 20, 1918, this case, styled as "The State of Ohio vs. Clinton M. Rice, guardian of John W. Young, an insane person," was heard in the Common Pleas Court of Knox County and the presiding judge, after reviewing the various arguments presented by counsel, ordered the jury to bring in a verdict in favor of the State which was to include interest for the unpaid amount as stated in the petition presented by the State. This court also held that the alleged infringement of the cited sections of the constitution did not exist. The defendant then appealed the case to the Court of Appeals. On December 18, 1918, the three judges of this court unanimously confirmed the decision of the Common Pleas Court. The text of the decision of the Court of Appeals follows. It has not been determined whether the defendant will make further effort to carry the case to the Supreme Court. As this is the first decision upon the support law, it will have an important bearing in the future conduct of the Support Department. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, KNOX COUNTY, OHIO Question: Is the "pay patient law" of Ohio constitutional? This question was brought in the court of common pleas of Knox County, Ohio, under favor of sections 1815 to 1815-12, inclusive, of the General Code. An answer was filed by the plaintiff in error, defendant below, which admitted the allegations of the petition, but set up the unconstitutionality of the law as a defense. A general demurrer was interposed to this answer and the same was sustained. fenses. An amended answer was then filed which contained three separate deThe first, after practically admitting all of the allegations of the petition, contained a general denial; the second setting up the defense that the ward was a pensioner, and that he had no means except what had been received as pension, and that plaintiff below was therefore unable to enforce the payment of its claim. The third defense set up the unconstitutionality of the law. A general demurrer was then interposed to the second and third defenses of the amended answer and the same was sustained. The case then went to trial to a jury upon the petition, the first defense in the amended answer, and the evidence, and after the evidence was adduced, the court directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff below for the full amount of its claim, being the sum of $397.06, for one hundred and thirteen weeks' support, at $3.10 per week, and interest thereon, furnished John W. Young, an insane person, at the State Hospital for the Insane, at Columbus, Ohio. A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and exceptions noted. Counsel for plaintiff in error seek to reverse the judgment in this case upon the ground the "pay patient law" is unconstitutional for the reason that it is in conflict with Section 26 of Article II, and Section 1 of Article VII, of the Constitution of Ohio. The first is: “All laws, of a general nature, shall have uniform operation throughout the state The second is: "Institutions for the benefit of the insane, blind, deaf and dumb, shall always be fostered and supported by the state; and be subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the general assembly." Do the requirements of this law operate uniformly throughout the state of Ohio? An examination of its provisions at once satisfied us that the answer must be-yes. It will be conceded, we think, that the mere fact that a statute is based on a classification, and in effect applies to certain persons to the exclusion of others, does not affect its validity, if it be so made that all persons subject to its terms are treated alike under like circumstances and conditions. We hold that legislation, which in effect carries out a public purpose, and applies to a class or classes of unfortunate persons of our state, as the humane law now under consideration seeks to do, and which is limited in its application, if within the bounds of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the prohibition of Ohio's Constitution. It is necessary that such law must affect alike all persons in the same class and under similar conditions, the restriction being that the law must apply to all of a given class, and that individuals from such classes cannot be excepted. It will be observed that individuals are not excepted from the provisions of the "pay patient law," but it applies to all persons who come within the class of insane, blind, etc. The rule here laid down is well settled in Ohio, and is found in the second syllabus of the case of The Steele, etc., Co., vs. Miller, 92 O. S., page 115, which reads: "A statute is general and uniform, within the requirements of the constitution, if it operates equally upon every person and locality within the circumstances covered by the act, and when a classification has a reasonable basis it is not invalid merely because not made with exactness or because in practice it may result in some inequality." Testing the 'pay patient law' by the provisions of Section 2 of Article 7 of our Constitution, will it stand or fall? Counsel for plaintiff in error, in their brief, say: "It would seem very clear that the legislature derives its power from this provision of the Constitution to enact Section 1815, G. C., because it is in accordance with its provisions, but it is entirely without power to create in the law such exceptions as are contained in the sections that follow." The admission made by learned counsel in the first part of the above statement is sound, but the latter part of same, in which it is claimed that subsequent sections of this law create exceptions making it unconstitutional, is not well taken. We reach this conclusion after careful examination of all the sections of the act in question. Counsel having conceded that this provision of the constitution is not self executing, and that in order to make it operate it was necessary for the legislature to act, which it has done, and having done so with proper discretion and within constitutional bounds, the law is effective. The constitution makers of our state acted wisely and humanely when they provided for the fostering and support of institutions for the insane, blind, etc., and the legislature of Ohio exemplified its humanitarian spirit when is passed the law now before us for consideration, and thereby provided for the maintenance, support and care of such unfortunate wards. The necessity of having places for the restraint as well as for the care of insane persons will not be questioned. This is essential for all so afflicted, whether they be rich or poor. The state is bound to and does for the sake of society, the protection of the public, and for the personal welfare and safety of all such unfortunate persons, provide a place and suitable care for them, and our legislature in its wisdom passed this "pay patient law" requiring such |