New-York tribune., 1902-03-19
SUPERVISION OF CHARITIES.
A REJOINDER TO MIR. FAULKNER BY A
FORMER SECRETARY OF THE ILL
NOIS STATE BOARD OF CHARITIES.
To the Editor of The Tribune.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: My attention has been called to an arti-
Gle which appeared recently in The Tribune
over the signature Of c. r. Faulkner, president
of the National Conference of Charities and
Correction, 1900" entitled. Governor OdeH Up
held; an Experienced Administrator of Charities
on Reform Of State Hospitals
Mr.. Faulkner is experienced administrator
OF charities, and presided for one year over the
National Conference Of Charities. but IT must
not be inferred that he speaks for that body
with any authority. 1t makes no delIverances
upon disputed questions Of legislative policy,
and permits one to speak for il. In fact the
views expressed by Mr.. Faulkner opposed
by what I believe 10 be the majority OF its
members. 7 refer TO the proposition to substi-
tute I'm the administration OF State charities
executive board Of control for all the State
institutions, instead cf a board with advisory
and supervisory powers. leaving the institutions
in the control Of separate ards OF trustees.
This ne seems to confuse with the different
question whether for the insane hospitals, "A
central executive board Of managers should be
substituted for a number of similar executive
boards, each in charge OF a single hospital It
viii be perceived that these are distinct issues.
Much of what he writes is not pertinent to
either of them.
I shall not initiate my friends example and
give advice on local problems to the citizens Of
State OF which 1 am not a resident. and in
whose affairs / not called to interfere; but
the general question OF the advsability OF
State boards Of control l have a word 10 say,
which may be worthy Of attention.
This question has been discussed and reds-
cussed in the national conference. and, far
as now remember. no one has ever advocated
the system of administration represented by
State boards of control except the representa-
tives of States having such boards. of OF
which, in Kansas. Mr.. Faulkner was for many
years secretary. There are, l think happily
very few States in which it prevails
The need Of supervision OF private and public
charities IS all but universally admitted. Ad-
ministraton and inspection diverse fuuc-
tons The first point to be made against a
State board Of control is that It's operations
and the condition Of the institutions under its
jurisdiction not subject to inspection, criti-
csm review. 1t has absolute power, under
the laws by which il is governed. and there is
check upon the abuse Of the power intrusted
to 1t. The creation Of State boards Of public
charities in many of the States intended
to be a check upon the abuse of absolute power
In the hands OF local boards of trustees and it
has proved in practice to act such Mr..
Faulkner and those who think as he does would
remove this check by abolishing supervision.
That to my mind, educated by more than thirty
years experience in the administration of pu2-
lie charity would be a loss instead of gain.
1t is not unnatural, perhaps, for the members
of a supervisory board, when confronted with
conditions which they disapprove and would
like to see altered to desire executive power in
order to accomplish directly what 1t is difficult
70 accomplish indirectly by means Of publicity,
persuasion and moral influence. But ii would
be equally reasonable for military inspector
to ask for power summary to order charges
made which properly only be made by the
commanding officer.
Neither is it unnatural for the members OF
such a board, feeling that the demands upon
their time are onerous and that their service
is rendered at personal sacrifice to seek com
pensation in the form of salary This is the
old old question of the comparative value OF
paid and unpaid service in philanthropic work,
which is too large and has too many sides for
discussion in this brief letter. There are. how
ever, two practical objections to payment in
money OF the members of a supervisory board,
or for that matter. of board of control. The
first is that salaried places are regarded by
politicians as the spoils OF victory, and the con-
troll of the State Institutions under that plan
almost inevitably passes into the hands of
men who have special interest in them or fit
ness for managing them from a scientific and
phiIanthropic point of view. The other is that
men who are paid a salary feel that they must
earn it, The only way in which men in this
lation to the government earn 1t is by the
/ exercise of executive functions properly belong
! ing to the superintendent of each institution
/ tn edetaii which he can exercise to far greater
! advantage. The result is confusion. uncertainty
! friction, conflict division Of authority and de-
! terioration in the quality of service rendered
| Under this system there is less encouragement
! for men of recognized and undoubted ability to
! seek employment superintendents OF institu-
J tions and, generally speaking, the institutions
/ are manned by executive officers of a lower
/ grade.
| Still further the consolidation of a group Of
! institutions in the hands Of a single executive
! board, composed presumably OF practical poll
l ticians means a concentration OF power which
may easily prove the occasion OF pecuniary and
political corruption. II the institutions are to be
made a part OF the political machine, the more
thoroughly their organization is centralized the
/ more readily they be made TO subserve the
! political ambition of individuals. If a purpose
! exists anywhere to compel them TO yield a reve-
| nue. for private GAIN by secret discounts upon
| purchases. or, for the promotion of partisan
| ends, by assessments upon employees the uni
fcation of all parts of the system under a single
board facilitates the execution Of this corrupt
| design. FREDERICK HOWARD WINES,
Washington, Mach II, 1902.