The Morris County chronicle., 1903-02-27

tribute its charitable appropriations sc
that the limited aggregate shall DO the
most good Those who see only part OF
the need and do not realize how little
part it is of the whole, will dem and toe
much for their own branch Of the work.
1t is plain for these TWO reasons that
volunteer boards in charge of charities
need supervision; and just as official state
management has made its progress under
the i'm partial criticism and supervision of
! volunteer citizens and associations so
on the other hand, public charities man
aged by volunteer boards have been kept
in check by official supervision and cri-
ticism. In an enlightened community
public opinion does much. Its pressure
| upon such management Is Invaluable.
when it is guided by an independents and
intelligent press and inspired by sym
pathy with the highest aims of the work
itself But criticism to be adequate
| must have knowledge of details and
/ expert acquaintance with methods. and
| persistency and constancy which are
never found In the general public 1t has
! often been found usefal that such super
vision be exercised by the state itself,
through professional experts and officers.
! Voluntary association with chartered pow
ers have done much good work in this
direction; with popular support, they can
in some states render the greatest service.
| Yet, for the distribution. management
sistent with the whole policy of our in
stitutions that there be definite CEN
tral authority; and this can hardly be
| dis oensed with.
Thus there have grown up by two dis
tinct systems of administration for public
institutions that by central official con
troll, with such supervision and CRITICS m
as can be afforded by private volunteer
/ inspection, or private and chartered but
| voluntary association, and secondly
administration by local voluntary control,
| with the supervision of paid and profess
sional state officers. Each of these is q
! logical and consistent system for which
| plausible and even strong reasons may be
| adduced Each has been tried in several
states of the Union, and we shall doubt
| less have much information tomorrow as
| TO the comparative results But we have
neither system fully developed in our
4 own state. Nearly all our penal institu-
tions, including the state prisons and the
county and city jails, are purely official
in their control aud administration and
the only supervision or independent
criticism exercised over them in any
| syst ematic way Is that of the voluntary
| society known as the State Charities Aid
| Association chartered for the purpose.
IJ has inadequate powers and deficient
resources. On the other hand, the Re
formatory, the Reform School, and many
of the charitable institutions are governed
by unpaid boards and no regular and
efficient supervision Is provided for them
by law except so far as the disbursements
of public moneys for them are made by
the proper state officers The highest
function of such supervision, TO criticise
conduct and stimulate efficiency. is not
really vested In anyone The laws place
uponthe Governor vast responsibility for
| these institutions, and it would require
omniscience itself to fill his office salts
factorily in this respect.
1t Is, then. the plain duty of the State
to provide for efficient and independent
supervision of it's penal and charitable
institutions. How. and by whom, shall
such supervision be execised? If left to
the doubtful sporadic action of volunteer
citizens, how can it be sustained and ade
quate? 1t must be organized, persistent,
systematic. The State must provide for
it's organization I5 must be one which
shall breadth enough to comprehend the
needs of all the wards of the state, and
Intelligence enough to keep in touch with
everything that is thought and learned
throughout the world of active charity
for their benefit. 1t must be patient in
examining details, sympathizing towards
the working staff and It's work, inspiring
and helpful in guiding. and encouraging
them, and wholly independent of all in
fluences save the aim to fulfill the great
purposes of the system. And above all,
Ia to say, the critical aOd visiting auth lr-
ity must not be confounded or associat
ed with the managing or administrative
authority.
1t is fundamental in democratic insti-
tutions that the business of the community
shall be conducted by publicity and re
sponsibility Every high officer of state
is suppo ied to fulfill his office in the sun
light, the peoples eye. 1t is the constan5 {
aim of true constructive craftsmanship
TO simplify the work of such officers, so
that 10 may be understood by the body of
the people The supervision exercised
over such officers is that of the voters, to
whom they are responsible; but the de
tailed administration of charities and
corrections is a business of extreme COM
pie kitty. The public at large is conscious
of It's Incompetence to criticise i5. Hence
the absolute need of expert supervision.
The qualifications for this supervision are
wholly different from those required for
executive work. To unite the two func.
tions in tho same persons is always
ruinous and intolerabe, IG Is the extinction
of real responsibility and a sacrifice of
fundamental principles, and with it of all
the progress that has been made in two
generations
Hitherto we have spoken only of super
vision, but the problem of supervision can
not be separated from that of management.
Until we have fixed the methods of con-
troll, we cannot determine the best
methods for the oversight of 1t. and the
public mind is today entirely unsettled as
60 the foundations of charitable organic
alton. A movement has begun of late
which aims TO sweep away the partnership
of the enlightened and charitable public
with it's government In this vast work and
would vest the entire management in
governmental officers. In five or six
states, boards of control have already been
established, in whose hands are centered
the de allied administration and the gener
al supervision of the whole state system OF
charities and corrections The reasons
avowed for advocating this plan are almost
exclusively the two arguments which l
have already adduced in favor of the
supervision of voluntary boards of manage
ment; namely, the danger of neglect foI
want of leisure, and the danger of extrava
! gance growing out of enthusiasm. III
these arguments have the weight which
some able men give them, the conclusion
| that official boards of control are needed
seems unavoidable.
| But considerations are not wanting or
the other side. We must not permit tht
advantages which experience has shown
voluntary boards to possess to vanish from
our sight. What are theys The first o
these is that the best service Is obtained In
| such work from men who are inspired
with love of the work itself Those whC
will serve from devotion TO the cause, anc
not for the sake of pay, are apt to be pc
| culiarly and lastlngly efficient The
management of such institutions requires
broad knowledge, scientific method, q
spirit of progress, and at the came time
contact and communion with the world oi
thought and benefoenoe These are not
readily found in officialism but rather In
those who care enough for the work tC
consecrate themselves to it for It's own