those whose duty it is to support them. We recommend, also, greater uniformity in dealing with children throughout the state, especially the establishment of children's courts, particularly in large cities, that these children may, as much as possible, be removed from object lessons in penology, and from contact with crime.

In

We believe the family is the most natural place for the child, and that the most natural family is its own. It takes a great deal of acquired love to equal that which springs spontaneously from blood relations. our search for better methods, we must guard against ideals, in the sense of wholly impractical theories, which could be carried out only under conditions which nowhere exist.

I am satisfied that there will be less disagreement about method among all earnest people working for the welfare of the children, if the religious rights of the children and the natural rights of their parents and relatives are respected and secured. The majority of people engaged in child-saving work are, I think, convinced that it is for the best interest of all concerned to maintain the religious rights secured by the constitution of the state and nation and to take religion into account in all reformatory work.

Another noteworthy fact in the history of child saving is that nearly all the great improvements were effected through private societies, associations, or institutions, or at their urgent request. This is particularly encouraging to us, the representatives of so many charitable interests united in a common cause the good of our dependent children—and, if we may trust the

history of the past, our combined and persistent efforts can not fail to bring forth the results we so earnestly desire.

WHAT BROUGHT ABOUT THE NEW YORK SYSTEM OF CARING FOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN? DO THESE REASONS FOR THE SYSTEM STILL EXIST?

A paper on the subject stated above was presented at the New York State Conference of Charities and Correction by Mr. Homer Folks, secretary of the State Charities Aid Association, New York. Mr. Folks said in part:

The subject which has been assigned to me assumes that there is a system of caring for dependent children in this state, and that it differs from those of other states to such an extent that it may be called distinctively "The New York System." A fundamental principle of the New York system, in my opinion, is that of supporting children who are public charges, in institutions under the control of private corporations. Michigan led the way in the adoption of a radically different system, -that in which the state cares for all children who are public charges, collecting them into one central institution and placing them as rapidly as possible, through state agencies, in free permanent homes in families. With some modifications this plan has been adopted by nine other states. In three other states,—Ohio, Connecticut, and Indiana,-destitute children are supported by counties in public institutions under the control of county officials. Massachusetts has a state system, but has substituted the temporary boarding-out plan for the central temporary insti

tution, but as in the Michigan system, the placing of children in free permanent homes as soon as possible is the object in view. Radically differing from all of these is the New York system, in vogue also in California, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and, to some slight extent, in some other states. Under this plan the children are placed in private institutions and are paid for, so long as they remain there, by an allowance from the public treasury. Formerly it was in fact, as well as in name, a subsidy system, the payments of public funds having little relation to the number of children or the cost of their support. More recently, however, these payments have very generally been made on a per capita basis.

In asking what brought about the New York system, it is natural to ask when it was established, but the answer is not easy. The beginnings of the subsidy system date back to 1811, only four years after the establishment of the first orphan asylum in the state. The New York system was never adopted, it grew; not indeed, like Topsy, for it was carefully tended; rather like the famous bean stalk of nursery fame, "And it grew, and it grew, AND IT GREW." It is easy to tell how it grew; it is not so easy to tell why. It is not difficult to trace the state appropriations to orphan asylums, beginning in 1811 with an appropriation of $500 annually to the New York Orphan Asylum. The number of institutions aided and the total amounts granted reached a total of $50,000 in 1857, and $910,000 in 1872. They were then ended abruptly by an amendment to the state constitution, adopted in 1874, prohibiting such appropriations. In

1875 the law was passed requiring the removal of children from almshouses to families or institutions.

It is easy also to trace the appropriations from local treasuries. The local appropriations increased even more rapidly than the state appropriations had done.

If we look underneath the surface, however, and ask why did New York adopt this system, we do not find the answer easy. The causes were many; among the leading ones were the following:

1. The orphan asylums were, many of them, in existence, and it involved a minimum of change to simply send the children from the almshouses to the asylum, and pay a moderate amount per week for their support. The reform moved along the

lines of least resistance.

2. Public care of children had always been associated with almshouse care, which had come to be a synoThe nym for neglect and abuses. reaction from these evils which cried aloud for redress, naturally led to the abandonment of practically all public agencies for the care of children.

3. New Yorkers have always feared and distrusted government. They have been keenly aware of the evils of paternalism and have had always before them the awful results. of the spoils system. It is extremely doubtful whether in any other city in the United States the Ramapo water contract would have been even proposed. And lately it has remained for New York to develop that anomaly, known as a subordinate governmental agency. In that particular aspect and capacity it has no existence elsewhere, though similar charitable societies do similar

4. The greater number and greater divergence of racial and religious interests here, favors a system of child saving which includes the development of institutions strengthened from the resources of the public treasury, but working under the name and control of organizations representing the particular elements of the population-racial, social, or religious.

Most of the causes which led to the adoption of the New York system still exist, but I have not included among them the one cause which alone would be an adequate reason for its continuance; namely, that it had been conspicuously successful.

If the New York system had proved itself adapted to secure the highest welfare of the greatest proportion of the children who properly become public charges; if it had not increased unduly the number of dependents, nor undermined the selfrespect of parents, nor weakened family ties, nor strengthened and perpetuated differences of race and creed, which in all public matters are best overlooked and forgotten, then, indeed, its claim to unanimous support would be unquestioned. That the New York system has failed in some of these particulars, notably in increasing the number of dependents and in weakening family ties, we should all of us admit. As to some of the points we might differ; as to others, particularly as to its freedom from the evils attending almshouse care, we should all agree that it has been successful. If we aim to strike the balance as best we may, admitting that it is a judgment based on incomplete data, and, therefore, sub

stance this, that the New York system is, as it were, still on trial; that having demonstrated some inherent tendencies to undue growth, to too much asylum and too little family care, and to undermining home life, it has, during the past five years or more, shown many gratifying evidences that it can be successfully readjusted and modified so as to preserve its fundamental principle and its beneficial features, and to counteract its unfortunate tendencies. The spirit is more than the form; the animating purpose more than the method of organization.

To attain such a much-to-be-desired result calls upon us all for toleration, sympathy, fairness, a desire to know each other, to understand each other, to appreciate each the point of view of the other; it calls for frequent conferences such as this, in which we appear, not as champions or vindicators of particular methods, but as seekers after truth.

THE COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN AS
PUBLIC CHARGES.

The paper presented by Dr. Will-iam O. Stillman, president of the Mohawk and Hudson River Humane Society, Albany, gave rise to an able discussion. The paper was entitled "What causes are leading to the commitment and surrender of children as a charge upon the public by parents or others? Can any of these causes be removed, and if so, how ?"

The discussion was opened by Hon. John W. Keller, president of the department of public charities, New York, who spoke in part as follows:

I do not try to fit New York con

ditions to the conditions of other localities. I know that the conditions of other localities can not be fitted to New York, and, therefore, to-night I shall talk from my own. standpoint and express the views that have come to me through studying the conditions of my own locality. Now the first thing that I am convinced of, is that there is no place for a child like home; that the best institution in the world is not as good as a good home. On the other hand, a good institution is better than a bad home.

First and foremost, in finding a home for a child, we must regard the religious principle of the people of that child. The best Protestant home would not be a good home for a Hebrew child and the best Jewish home would not be a good home for a Catholic child. When we consider these things, we find how scarce in this country are good Jewish homes and good Catholic homes, in proportion to the demand for homes for children. And in this we find, also, the answer of the question, why are so many children in institutions in the city and state of New York?

There are some abuses. They have always obtained. They still obtain under the system of admitting to these institutions. There is no question whatever that the information that men and women can put their children in these institutions has spread about through the community, and that there has been bred a germ of paternalism which leads a great mass of people, the moment anything interferes with the general movement of the home, to seek to relieve themselves of added responsibilities by applying for admission to the institutions. This is a thing which should be stopped.

How? I think the answer is to be found in part in the establishment in the city of New York of a court for the commitment of children. At present we commit, for improper guardianship, through the city magistrate; by direct surrender to the institution; and, for destitution, through the department of public charities. There should be some regular and responsible means of commitment. In the children's court there should be a record, not only of the commitments, but of all the antecedent data possible to be obtained prior to the commitment.

As commissioner of public charities, I am every day confronted with propositions from people to put their children into institutions; and they seem to have only this thoughtthat the institution is a convenience to the general public.

The only way is to have a thorough investigation. Don't make the institution worse. Keep it just as good as it can be, for if a child is to be admitted into an institution, it should be entitled to all the comfort and all the attention and all the education it can get out of the institution. It is bad enough to be in an institution without being deprived of any of the advantages that any institution has to-day.

The retention of children too long in institutions can be remedied by the action of the authorities. The investigation should not end with the admission of the child. It should be kept up throughout the stay of the child in the institution, so that whenever opportunity may offer to take the child out of the institution, that may be done.

Mr. Keller named as one of the great causes of poverty and crime, the condition of the tenement houses

of New York city, and made a plea for more sunlight and air by means of improved construction. To this end he favored revised building laws.

TENEMENT-HOUSE BATHROOMS.

[From the American Contractor.] The habit of bathing is a most commendable one and is deserving of every possible encouragement. That dirt is closely allied with vice has been recognized from the most remote ages, while the connection between cleanliness and Godliness has passed into an aphorism. Decency and hygiene combine to demand conveniences for bathing on the part of all people, the poor (for whom these tenements are planned) as well as the rich.

Bathing facilities for occupants of tenements is a problem that has long vexed architects and owners. For the most part tenants demand all "modern conveniences" and then relegate the bathtub to uses altogether foreign to that for which it was designed. The New York. Tenement-House Commission has recently sent a series of questions on the general subject of tenement-house regulation to a large number of persons, including architects, physicians, official inspectors, and others whose callings and investigations render their opinions of value.

would not be employed for the purpose for which they were intended. A number reported having found that bath tubs in tenement houses are quite generally used for storage, such as vegetable bins, while some have found tubs filled with coal. The consensus of opinion seems to be that bathrooms in apartments occupied by average poor people would not be very generally employed for bathing purposes, one well-known architect suggesting that a law providing for compulsory bathrooms should include their compulsory use by tenants.

Bathing calls for time, and, when it has not become a habit, for something of an effort; besides, a large number of persons seem to have a positive aversion to water, whether used externally or internally. Of the replies received some expressed the opinion that those disposed to bathe would employ for that purpose cheap portable tubs of tin or rubber, as is so generally done in European and Asiatic countries. and that the general cleanliness of the common poor would not suffer by the absence of fixed bath tubs in tenement houses. On the subject of closets, all agree that they are, for many considerations, indispensable, and must be provided in connection with every suite of living rooms. On the other hand, the considerable expense of the plumbing, tubs, and necessary space, can not but add to the rents exacted. Thus the tenant is forced to pay for something that he does not use, and, in an effort to best utilize that for which he pays, he employs the bath room for purposes that tend to destroy its value. Thus, both tenant and landlord are losers.

A remedy for the difficulty may be found in a well arranged system