questionable or undesirable. The sphere, the duty, of the city, is to make its few public agencies as nearly as possible model agencies. And another duty, demanding large expenditure, rests upon the city, -outside the field of public aid, properly speaking, yet closely related to it, the duty of promoting health and decreasing dependence by giving cleaner streets, more parks and other public improvements in least favored parts, where live the poorest citizens.

Again, the argument may be made that, if society should take such pains in the administration of public aid, in order to prevent the increase of dependence, will not the use of private agencies, with city supervision following public money, tend to bring about a higher standard of work in the community than if the city has its own few agencies and each private agency goes its own way unheeded? This brings up a question of vast and growing importance. Why should supervision by the community, on behalf of the dependent, be limited to those agencies which receive public money? Reasonable supervision by a commission of specialists will work for the real welfare of the charitable, of the dependent, and so of the community. It is a question of duty primarily for the State to perform, but done it should be, by State or city. We license medical practitioners, we lay down strict health regulations, some communities limit the number of liquor saloons, some enforce the duty of education, etc.,- all done at the expense, perhaps, of the wishes of some individuals for the good of the community. And so, I maintain, it is the duty of the State, by a board of public officials, to inspect and report on the work of all private agencies for the care and treatment not only of the insane,- for so far we have gone,- but of all classes of dependants. "Good intentions" on the part of individuals should be good in the eyes of the community only as they make for the welfare of the community.

Lastly, the argument will surely be raised that political conditions in our large cities are such that public rule is often misrule, that the care of dependants ought not to be left to public officials. Now I believe that a city can make up a few unpaid public boards, of men and women both, for the care of its dependants, which shall represent a much higher grade of intelligence and of personal service than will be found in most of the many boards which run our private charities. Whether or no the city will do its duty depends mostly on the attitude which you and I and other so-called "good" citizens

are going to take and keep. To care properly for those dependent on a city is in truth an honorable service, is an important part of good city government. With the statement that we had better not intrust to public officials this lofty service, I have no patience. It should be done, and well done, by public servants, responsible to the whole community. Shall civil service reformers throw up their hands because their enemy still shows fight? Shall we give up the American public school system because it is not perfect? The way to secure what we believe to be right is to stand up and work for it, and to keep on working until we succeed.

OUTDOOR RELIEF.

ABSTRACT OF PAPER BY J. R. WASHBURN,

SUPERINTENDENT OF POOR, JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK.

The law or the interpretation of a law that allows an official to permanently provide for a family in their home (especially if there are members of that family able to work) is an admission that they are entitled to be supported in their own way, whether they earn it or not, if they only have the appearance of needing it. This is a dangerous admission to make to a class of people who are sure to take every possible advantage of it, and who need no such encouragement to become idle and improvident. And, when we carry this practice to the extent of teaching it to children from infancy onward, it becomes not only folly, but a menace to our social structure itself, as it is but a step from indolence and idleness to immorality and crime. We scold the man for being intemperate and spending the money for drink that should provide his children bread and shelter; but we have said to that man that, if he does this, we will not see his family suffer. We deplore the fact that people mentally and morally deficient, who are devoid of energy and the general attributes of good citizenship, should marry and reproduce their kind; yet we interpose no obstacle to prevent, and have promised them that we will supply what they fail to. When the conditions become so bad that

we are obliged to take these children from their worthless and incompetent father, or if he concludes that his easiest way is to give them up entirely until they may be large enough to be a help to him, we considerately place them where they will be brought up in the same religious faith that he professes, but has disgraced. Is not this really educating these people to the course of action we so much deplore ?

It has been said in defence of this system of outdoor relief in the rural sections that we have no millionaires to come to our aid, hence we must resort to taxation. True, we have not; but every community has a wealth of kind and neighborly feelings and impulses to which they can appeal. And such appeals, if earnestly and honestly made, will always meet with a response. And, if this is supplemented by an appeal to the pride and better nature of those who need it, with the encouragement that any and all of us can give, we shall accomplish results which will be most gratifying and of which any millionaire philanthropist might well feel proud.

I am satisfied that a settled practice of liberal and lavish outdoor relief in any community,— a large portion of which always goes to tide people over into their next year's misery,— after all its large expenditure, will soon result in leaving more want still unprovided for than would the opposite policy,- of its total abandonment,— and that an increase in the demands on private charity is more likely to result from the former than the latter plan. This has proved true in several cases within my experience, where radical reductions have been made.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF MUNICIPAL

CHARITIES.

BY HON. JOSIAH QUINCY, MAYOR OF BOSTON.

The problem of the proper organization and administration of municipal charities is not an isolated one, but is inseparably connected with the general problems of municipal government. It is possible, but by no means probable, that charities will be correctly organized and widely administered in a city where inefficiency or corruption characterizes other important branches of municipal activity; but the only sure guarantee of securing not only during a single administration, but continuously, the proper conduct of charities, is to be found in the maintenance of such a general standard of civic interest and of administrative efficiency as will result in the successful conduct of municipal government in all its varied. branches. While certain special safeguards may perhaps be thrown around the administration of public charities, it is useless for those who are specially interested in this important branch of municipal service to entertain the idea that they can secure their own special objects while remaining indifferent to municipal government as a whole. Bad or ignorant city government must mean inferior public charities; and no general improvement can be made in municipal government, either through the awakening of a more active civic. spirit, the effecting of some important improvement in municipal . organization, or the election of a municipal official having a capacity for public administration, without a marked effect for good upon the policy and management of municipal charities.

It is therefore encouraging to note an increasing tendency among those specially interested in such problems as this Conference deals with to assume a part in connection with general municipal politics and to take such practical action as will make their weight felt in connection with nominations and elections; and it sometimes requires no greater effort to effect a general betterment by striking at the root of admitted evils than to secure a partial improvement in a particular department of municipal government. Co-operation in a common movement between all of those who are interested in the

improvement of any branch of municipal administration is therefore a most important end to attain.

In respect to the best form of organization of municipal charities the facts do not warrant us in assuming too dogmatic a position in favor of any particular system. American municipal government is still very largely in the experimental stage of development; that is to say, instead of having reached the best scheme of municipal organization and administration, as the countries of Europe have done, we are still engaged in a process of experimentation under legislative sanction, trying radically different schemes in different cities, and changing our city charters constantly to endeavor to improve the practical workings of our municipal institutions. The municipal problem is a very different one in the United States from that which has presented itself in any other country or at any other time; and, with the evidence around us on every hand that our municipal institutions are in a condition of unstable equilibrium, seeking and hardly yet finding the firm foundation upon which the structure of good local government may be erected, it would indeed be bold to the point of rashness to undertake to lay down any definite rules for the best organization and administration in all cities of their municipal charities.

The most which we can do as yet is to try to learn some of the lessons of experience and to lay down certain general theoretical principles, leaving the advisability of their particular application to be determined according to varying local conditions. In attempting to outline a few such general principles, drawn in part from the experience of the city of Boston, I do not desire to be understood as stating any dogmatic opinion as to the possibility or advisability of the practical application of these general doctrines in other American cities.

Perhaps the fundamental question of a political character connected with the administration of municipal charities is the connection of such administration with the central authority in the municipal government.

The first question is whether the officers or boards in charge of such charities should be chosen by the legislative or executive branch of the municipal government. Here I think the teachings of experience under our political conditions are very plain,- at least, in respect to cities of any considerable size. No members of city councils should serve upon charitable boards, nor should they have