The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-01-25
bsquests, the society's freedom from taxa

ton and Its receipt OF $50, 900 annually
from the New York city treasury, did not
change II into q charitable institution any
more than similar powers exercised by col.
leges, academies and other institutions
turned them into public or private chart
ties. Such q definition would include all
organizations Of q religious Or benevolent
character, and the desire to use the definl-
ton in that sense could not be Imputed "
the trainers Of the Constitution. Thu gist
Of Judge OBRIEN's decision IL, however,
contained in the following paragraphs:
THE powers Of tho board over chArttable institu.
tons orig mated In the abuses supposed ~ exist in
the appropriation and expenditure OF public money
for charitable purposes. Therein IL 70 DO found the
reason OF the law, and II Is safe enough TO assume
that . corporation that does not fall within tho reA-
son u the enactment Is not Q char table institution.
even though engaged in a Rood and lAudsble work
without gain or reward, The BOARD Was empowered
to deal with charitable institutions. not In
the broad and general sense to which l have
referred, but In more limited and restricted sense in
which these terms are used in the Constitution and
the statute, Tn. scheme Of State supervision was
notintended TO apply to every institution engaged In
some good or cornmsndable work for the RELIEF OF
humanity from ZONE OF the various ills with which
1t IL AFFLICTED. but only to those maintained In whole
or ia part By the state or some Of IL political divis-
ions through which charity. as such. WAS dispensed
by public authority to those having . claim upon
the generosity or bounty o: the state
the charity with which the State 10 concerned 10
something quite different. That consists in tAe dis
trbution Of relief or public aid. the fruit OF taxation
levied alike upon the Wiling and the unwilling.
The right Of visitation and regulation applies only
to those Institutions. public or private, through
which the State fulhls this function. They alone
are within the reason If the Law, and, consequently.
within ito scope and operaion."
We are bound to say that We think the
Court Of Appeals has made an error OF grave
import in limiting the powers Of the State
Buarl of Charities in this case to those
only which are literally implied from the
word "charitablr." Suca limitation of
the boards fun ,tions would entirely strip
it Of the necessary power, and would, in
deed, leave no board OF State officers or
other State authority with power To exer-
else wholesome supervision over many
institutions which, while they might not
be exclusively Charitable" were yet
places in which people We're restrained
| VI Ut iipNi'y anu 10 SuNh Nti' III ~
need Of proper State control. The Con-
stitution and tho laws which We have
quoted ave heretofore been taken by con-
tempOraneous construction and by the
unanimous acquiescence of all concerned
to mean simply what they purport on
their face, namely, that all those places
In the State where people are kept or
| pnnf'1nl TINT mr., Glua.ilnl in anD,-
mon speech under the title Of I'm
stitutions," are subject TO the broad
supervision Of the State Board Of
Charities, except such institutions as are
devoted to ~lunatics and criminals. The
intent OF the organic laws and Of legislative
cnactmonts has been absolutely under
stood TO be to make the Board Of Charities
a sort Of State Council, in whose care all
institutions, save those of the two excepted
classes, were to be included. The intent
, was not merely to see that money raised
by taxation was a~dynntaGeously expended,
but that the inmates Of institutions should
receive sanitary and humane treatment
and that there should be, In a general way.
no miSmanagement.
1t is IA matter Of history that the Con-
stitutional Convention OF 1894 deliber-
ately set out to widen the hitherto re-
stricted powers OF the State Board Of
Charities. The wording of the entire
Constitutions section relating TO tho
board brcathrs this spirit, as Is seen in tho
~peremptory direction to the board to visit
: and inspect" in the extension Of the delini-
ton OF the "reformatorIcs," aud in the ex-
clusion from the authority OF the Lunacy
Commission all institutions tor idiots and
cpileptics. The statutes seem, II anything,
more imperative and comprehensive than
the Constitution, extending the power OF
the Board OF Charities to all Institutions.
private or otherwise and making il
obvious that the board was to visit and
supervise for broad and general purposes
all places Of this sort within the State.
It is, therefore, both startling and puz-
a!ing to find the Court Of Appeals constru-
ing tho Constitution and laws on this sub
iect SC rs to restrict the powers of the
State Board OF Charities solely to those in
situations which are supported in whole or
great part by the Expenditure Of public
money the legitimate coroilary of which
doctrine is, Of course, that the board can
only concern itself, once It has entered such
institutions, with the comparative profit or
loss with which public money is being laid
out. This decision leaves in our State n large
number Of institutions, in which people
young and old are restrained of personal
liberty, which are subject to no State
inspection or supervision, save that exer-
cised by the Supreme Court in its inherent
but only nominally used powers. BY this
means the Gerry society, is not only en-
ablcd, ii it wishes, to hold children by a sort
! OF letire de cdchet until they arrive at the
age OF sixteen, but is permitted to bar its
doors to the entrance Of tho State officers
, on any and every p~retext, and for any and
every purpose,
II such is the rulo it had better DO
undonc without delay by the Legislature or
by the Court of Appeals itself.
A.