New-York tribune., 1881-03-31
rLsLrLNG prHLLc 1nlELLLES-

Senator Bakers bill concerning our State
Charities, which is now before the Legislature,
and has been fay0rably considered in Senate
Committee, calls for more attention from the
general public than it is likely TO receive. The
general public is apt to consider poor people
and those who pepctually fuss about them
bores of the worst kind. II will take a keen
interest in nm individual case like Shepherd
Cowley's, which is dramatic and Il tractive as
tragedy or comedy, but it will not be both.
cred with big philanthropic schemes OF invcsu-
cations. Hence il q ccTiuy pays out its
money by the million for lhe support OF these
tircsome needy classes chiefly with the hope
that they may bc kept out OF sight, yet X
Indifferent rs to whether thcy are misman-
aged, or even abused, IN the Gsyums and hos
ptals where they are supported. 1t IS this
indifference Of tho public that mekcs Senator
Bakers bill a necessity. There nave been
and are serious abuses IN our charitable inSt-
tut;ons The public that IS taxed to keep up
the houses will not look INTO them. The
State Board Of Charities even if il were dis
posed 10 inspect each establishment closely,
has not the time or Numbers to do il effect
lively. The proposed bill empowers a
Justice OF the Supreme Court to
give permission 10 members Of the State Chari-
ties Aid Association 10 enter and inspect all
State charitable institutions. 1t is claimed that
the women who are members Of this Assoca-
ton can give more time and attention t. the
work than the Board Of Charities that many
reforms have been accoi lplished 10y their
means during the last year or two which 9TH
crwisc never would have been heard ONO
Bellevue Hospital to pavilions, the bringing
of trained nurses into the hospitals, and the
passage of the tramp bill.
The State Board refuses admission to the
members Of this Association as coadjutors or
assistants The objection TO them is the gen.
cral one Of interference with the peculiar
duties of the State Board. The TRIBUNE has
nothing to do with this private quarrel. The
matter, however, as it appears to an outsider,
is simple enough. The State Board of Chari-
ties has the right and certainly would be
wise to exclude from the institutions over
which it has (Or ought to havc) charge,
all mischievOus, foolish meddling visitors.
whether men or women no matter how piOus
or humane their intentions There could be,
however, no danger that the Supreme Court
would grant permits to any Of that class.
On the part Of the Association we must re-
member that reforms in the case of penal or
charitable institutions have generally grown
out OF the efforts Of volunteer inspectors. The
moment man or woman becomes n paid su-
pervisOr, he or she is apt to grow blind to the
shortcomings of other paid officials. Howard,
when he uDearthed the abuses of the English
penal system, was a volunteer, and 50 was
Dorothea Dix when she dragged 70 light
the horrors of English and American
jails The good, earnest women who ask
the privilege of examining in detail our
charitable establishments do it without re-
ward of any kind. The duty is loathsome in
itself, and they have only the highest motive
for the work. The abuses which they dis
cover they propose to make public, and we
know of no reason why they should not make
them public. The taxpayers foot the bills
for the work done, and they have a right to
know how it is done. If there is no ground
Of complaint, why is inspection dreaded OF
denied III, State unfortunately must place
her helpless wards children, sick and insane,
for whose support she pays so enormous
price, in the care of paid keepers. nurses and
superintendents, who may be skilled, humane
and competent, or who may be ignorant and
brutal. Nobody could tell as quickly to which
class they belonged as an intelligent Christian
motherly woman, who went to her work only
for tlia reward of halnin0 tha lac. lr-- Why