THE INTERFERENCE OF A MUNICIPALITY IN BEHALF OF ITS WARDS.

BY ERNEST P. BICKNELL.

The forces which have wrought so powerfully in recasting our industrial system, with the consequent huddling together of huge populations in contracted areas, have compelled governments to review and revise their rights and duties as related to the individual citizen. In a sparsely populated community the individual may be allowed a freedom in the conduct of personal affairs which in a centre of dense population would be intolerable. All the agencies which make for health and happiness, for misery and death, are intensified by the sun-glass of urban conditions, and are focussed upon the life of the people.

The rapid growth of cities has found us unprepared for the new conditions. We have brought the laxity, the laws, the habits, of the rural neighborhood into the restricted areas of the city. Customs which in other relations were harmless are now found to foster vice or crime. Personal privileges, cherished for centuries, are become abuses of the rights of others. Disregard of sanitary and hygienic precautions, which in country air and wide spaces was unattended by ill results, now breeds epidemic and death. The adjustment of the life of the individual to these changing conditions is painful, but imperative. It is attended in every movement by opposition, argument, and entreaty, by an appeal to rights, to law, to justice, to humanity; but the succession of the seasons is a law of nature no more inexorable than that which decrees that men must fit their lives to their environment.

Merciful statutory law must from time to time be called upon to protect men from the operation of merciless natural law. Based upon continually changing conditions as such statutory law is, and designed to meet the new demands which from time to time arise, those who are affected by it are slowly coming into a recognition of the right and duty of government to interfere in the social and personal affairs of the individual to a degree which formerly would have been regarded as unreasonable and unjust. That every man is

entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is now seen to be true only when he can exercise these rights without encroaching upon the rights of others. This principle, clearly understood and accepted, the law-making power becomes most comprehensive, and the responsibilities of those intrusted with that power correspondingly great. The limits of measures which may be lawfully taken to preserve or restrict individual or collective rights must be determined by the wisdom of the law-making body rather than by an absence of power.

Such exercise of this power as has most manifestly encroached on what have been regarded as individual rights has probably taken. the form of legislation in behalf of those who, by reason of age or mental infirmity, are unable to protect themselves. Particularly has this been true of laws in which parental rights are involved. Two dominating reasons exist for carrying legislation in behalf of children into the very limits of the family circle. One is the helplessness of the child, its innocence of distinctions between right and wrong, and its extreme susceptibility to moral or bodily harm from influences which it can neither avoid nor control. The other, based upon economic considerations, is the importance to the perpetuity and integrity of our institutions of creating and maintaining a high standard of citizenship.

These reasons so far outweigh the immediate interests relating to parental control and guardianship that they must be given precedence when such control or guardianship is not in accord with them. In pursuance of this principle, many laws have been enacted which have had for their object either the protection of children from those who should be their natural protectors or the supplying of certain essentials to the health and mental and moral welfare of children which, because of the death, neglect, or incompetence of parents, cannot be expected from the natural source. As a rule, these laws have been strongly attacked when proposed, have been strenuously fought in the courts until their soundness and validity have been fully sustained, and then have been accepted by all as wise and humane. Each advance has been small in itself and in accordance with some principle already recognized in previous statutory enactments. By this process, government has gradually assumed such powers and responsibilities in its relations to children that it will be only by the exercise of profound wisdom that it will be able to properly discharge the duties which it has undertaken.

Hosts of questions now crowd forward, and cannot be put away without answer. How far may government properly go in supplying free educational facilities to its children? Shall free education be solely mental and moral, or shall it include the training of the hands? To what extent shall children be compelled to avail themselves of the facilities provided? What restrictions may be properly thrown about child labor? Many children fail to receive proper training or care because parents are indifferent or ignorant. What is the duty of government in such instances? Children, to be healthful and normal, must have pure air, pure water, pure food, sunlight, exercise, and amusement. How far shall government go in assuring these essentials to every child? Here are involved questions of overcrowding in tenements, of the construction and location of tenements, of drainage, ventilation, and water supply, of public playgrounds, of kindergartens, of nurseries. To what extent shall government exercise its power of wresting children from their parents? Shall children be taken from their parents only when their bodies are cruelly treated, or shall cruel treatment of the mind and soul constitute a cause for such action? When children are taken from parents, what degree of responsibility must be assumed for the

children so taken ?

These questions and others which arise can only be properly answered after a full inquiry into the moral and legal principles involved. If children are to be required to attend school, the municipality is bound not only to provide the schools, but proper books and clothing as well, if the usual private sources of supply fail. If by the prohibition of child labor the support of a person or a family is removed, the government must itself guarantee such support. Do we undertake to assure to every child the blessings of pure air, pure water, pure food, the light of the sun, and an open space for exercise and recreation, then must we also, to be consistent, prepare to take partial or entire control of many affairs hitherto usually or wholly in private hands. The power to seize upon a child and remove it permanently from its parents' control cannot be divorced from a full responsibility for that child's health and future well-being. Can a government afford to assume these powers and responsibilities? Can it afford not to assume them? Every civilized government has fully recognized the principle of interference in behalf of its weaker and less fortunate citizens. That being true, where is the line to be

drawn which separates the area of interference from that of non-interference?

I cannot here take up for discussion the various questions which have been mentioned or which suggest themselves. We have gone so far already in governmental guardianship of the interests of children that we cannot turn back if we would. What remains to be done is to so shape future policies that what we do shall not break down the essential distinctions between what is properly the duty of government and that which belongs clearly to the individual. is simple in statement, but will not prove simple in practice. There is an almost irresistible tendency to shift upon the broad shoulders of government the burdens which private citizens should bear. It is easier to pay a little more tax and put new duties on the government than to give the time and thought which would enable us to perform the duties ourselves. That this is a short-sighted policy does not need demonstration. Of what avail will it be to develop and organize our country's natural resources if, in so doing, we are leaving to unfit hands the education of those who, after us, will have control of what we have established? I do not believe that we have gone too far in governmental interference in behalf of children. do not believe we have, with possibly a few rare exceptions, gone far enough. But a tide of sentiment in favor of such interference is rising steadily and rapidly. Its presence is being manifested in a multitude of plans for the care or protection of children in a public or semi-public manner. This is well, provided our enthusiasm does not carry us beyond the bounds of wisdom. Our American pendulum sweeps through a wide arc. The momentum which it has gained in falling from the point of little or no legal interference is in danger of carrying us to a correspondingly hurtful extreme of such interference.

I

The public mind is ready for further measures in behalf of children. Those who by experience and position are prepared to lead in this direction will have hearty support. With favorable conditions and a growing interest we have now the opportunity to do for friendless and unfortunate childhood throughout the length and breadth of the land almost anything we may advocate. It is preeminently a time for seeking wisdom in counsel. It is a time when a few mistakes may undo us on the eve of victory.

WHAT ARE PROPER INCENTIVES TO REFORM?

ABSTRACT OF A PAPER BY T. J. CHARLTON.

At the outset, I ask pardon for referring to boys generically. Whatever I shall say about boys will apply equally to girls.

The first incentive which I shall mention as useful in the work of reformation is the desire for promotion. In the graded schools of the country this is the one incentive which is most used.

During a child's school life this desire to be promoted from one grade to the one next higher, or from the foot to the head of the class, is a strong stimulus. The little boy who, with a bounding heart, hurried home from school to tell his mother that he stood for the first time at the head of his class, illustrates this, even though further inquiry disclosed the fact that there were only two in his class, and on that particular day the other boy had remained at home. It is a very sluggish child, indeed, that is not affected by this incentive.

In the reform schools we should constantly hold up before the boy as an incentive the many promotions which await him who strives to do right. Our entire badge or merit system is based upon the power of this incentive. We find such promotions much stronger than punishments. I prefer a system of records of conduct, so that a boy may have each day or each week or month the delightful feelings of being promoted step by step.

Deprivation of privileges which they have abused is a valuable. punishment, and aids to secure wholesome discipline. In some institutions a diet restricted to bread and water is used. There is no doubt but scant and unsatisfactory food and other privations had much to do with the resolution of the prodigal son to go back to his father's house. So it is with a prodigal boy who persists in going wrong. He should feel that he might be enjoying many privileges if he would but give up his evil course. In this connection an incorrigible should be shown what he might be if he would reform. He should look upon the boy who does well and the boy whose deeds are evil. Looking at things thus contrasted has a very wholesome effect.