State Control of Charities and Corrections 21 



Wisconsin that the Board of Control has very largely succeeded 

 in eliminating all political considerations in appointments. It is 

 also the common testimony that the old system of leaving busi- 

 ness management and the purchase of supplies to the local au- 

 thorities of each institution was unsatisfactory. Each institution 

 under that system became the prey of the business men and 

 supply houses of the locality and of the political party in power. 

 Their abuses, and unbusiness-like methods could not be 

 corrected. Very little, if any, competition was admitted in the 

 purchase of supplies. The Board of Control did not succeed in 

 completely overcoming these conditions until 1898, when they 

 assumed entire responsibility for the purchase of all staple arti- 

 cles, and applied the same business principles that are followed in 

 a private business. The contract system was introduced in pur- 

 chasing large quantities of goods. They found that Chicago firms 

 were the lowest bidders. Their first biennial report showed a 

 saving to the state in the purchase of supplies of $121,183.15. 

 The common judgment in Wisconsin is that in the management 

 of comity and city jails, poorhouses, and in the management of 

 all charitable and penal institutions of the state, the Board of 

 Control has secured far better results than were possible under 

 the old system. There is no disposition in that state to go back 

 to the old methods. 



\^ 



IOWA AND MINNESOTA BOARDS OF CONTROL 



These states are considered together because both of them have 

 progressive state boards of control which are after the same 

 model. Iowa was in advance, creating a State Board of Control, 

 March, 1898. The Minnesota State Board of Control was es- 

 tablished in xA.pril, 1901, with slight modifications of the Iowa 

 law. In the study of these boards, which are now regarded as 

 representative boards of control, it is important to have a clear 

 conception of a board of control in distinction from an advisory 

 board of state charities. The following brief summary of the law 

 creating these boards of control shows the real functions of 

 such a board. 



377 



