The daily banner. (Cambridge, Md.) 1897-2008, 1913-07-30
STATE APPROPRIATIONS.
How The State Money is Expended

Continuing the series OIL arllcleS
regarding the work Of the Board of
State Aid and Charities, we this
week wish to consider the matter
of appropriations on the basis of
organizations, religious or other
wise, which are behind the various
institutions receiving State aid.
The appropriations classified in this
manner are as follows:
Eight owned and run by the
State, SAT- 900.
Five owned by the State, but
run by self-perpetuing boards,
$126,51S.s6.
Thirty-seven county institutions,in
Guiding IA school boards, $31. 500.
Sixty-two non-religious, $45S,325.
Eighteen Roman Catholic, $113,-
$50.
Fifteen nonsectarian Protestant
$60,S0O
Four Protestant Episcopal, S.
500.
Three Methodists, $35, 800.
Five Hebrews, $4,000.
One Dunkard, $4,000.
Total number of institutions, IS.
Total appropriation for mainte-
nance per year, S1,33S,593.
The prominent fact which stands
out in this tabulation is that out
- institutions dR
are religious organizations. These
As institutions receive $251 ESQ, or
10 per cent of the total of money
given for charitable purposes. There
is absolutely no reason for State
contributions to the support of de-
nominationa1 organizations, and CIV
en- without system, in lump sums,
as these contributions now are, they
are decidedly undemocratic. The fact
that Is of these 46 institutions re-
ceiving $118,650 out of the total
of $251,25O belong to one religious
denomination gives added reason
for Just criticism and strongly indd-
Gates favoritisn1. However,a large
per cent. of the population of Mary
land is Roman Catholic, and the
Catholics get this large amount of
money not because of favoritism,
but because they are always Ion
the Job Furthermore, consid-
Grafton of the work done by the
various institutions shows that the
religious are not getting more than
the amount of work which they do
entitle them to. The fact, in most
cases, they are not getting as much
for the same work as are the non
religious institutions.
The fact is, that these religious
institutions do great deal OF
work, part, at least, of which the
- aPf,r vprauueu 10 re-
Hgious institutions goes either to
orphan asylums or hospitals. In
neither of these fields does Mary
land have institutions of its own
The method of supporting hospitals
varies in different States of the
Union. A few of the States sub
sidize them as does Maryland; in
others, the hospitals are supported
by subsidies from local authorities;
in still others, all hospitals are sup
ported from private sources, while
few of the more progressive
States have established a system of
county hospitals, which apparently
do first-class work. Orphan asy-
lums are supported in much the
same way, except that the number
of State, or county, homes for chill
dren is much greater than those
having hospitals. The feeling that
the State is responsible for the
care of its INDECENT orphans is
growing very rapidly, and great
majority of the States recognize in
one way or another their response
bility for the proper bringing up of
dependent children. This being the
case, it is essential that someone
perform these tasks
IN maryland, the vast majority
of the work is done by institutions
having no religious affiliations, as
is shown by the fact that they get
81 per cent. of the money given
by the State for charitable purpo-
ses, nevertheless, the fact remains
that were the State to stop the
appropriations to religious institu-
tons, they would probably have
to close up, and should they do this,
the State itself would be the great
est sufferer, as its work would not
be done. Until the State is in
position to put up institutions of
its own, and do philanthropic work
as is now being done by these in
sritutions, these appropriations must