26 



Indiana University Studies 



have power to investigate the whole system of charities in 

 the State, keep closely in touch with the same, and be able 

 to advise the legislature intelligently concerning needed legis- 

 lation, appropriations, etc. Such a board, it was plain, would 

 be of great service in standardizing the whole charity ma- 

 chinery of the State, in enlightening the legislature, in edu- 

 cating public opinion on the whole subject of charities, and 

 in bringing to the heads of the various institutions valuable 

 advice drawn from the board's experience thruout the State 

 and from its study of the charity practice of other States. 

 It should be merely advisory and it should have members serv- 

 ing without compensation in order not to make it attractive 

 to politicians and office-seekers. The members should be 

 public-spirited citizens with high standing in the State, who 

 would not only themselves be interested in the State institu- 

 tions, but who would also interest many of the best citizens 

 in State charity work. One of the most prevalent arguments 

 was that it would be highly beneficial to have as large a num- 

 ber as possible of public-spirited men and women in close 

 touch and sympathy with the actual working of State institu- 

 tions.^2 An argument which arose a little later was that such 

 boards should not be given mandatory powers ; that is, should 

 not be authorized by law to force the heads of institutions to 

 accept their recommendations. This argument was insistently 

 urged during the period from 1887 to 1900 when there was 

 a marked tendency to grant such boards increasingly wide 

 executive and administrative functions. It was held that such 

 action would inevitably lead to conflict between the boards 

 and the institutions, and would ruin the utility of the boards 

 as advisory agents. 



Thruout, of course, ran the idea of the board as a power- 

 ful investigating agent should occasion arise. Its very exist- 

 ence as such an agent, it was thought, would tend to reduce 

 the probability of abuse in the institutions, and in case of 

 an actual investigation of any institution the board could 

 bring its accumulated experience to bear upon the problem. 

 To be sure, its only power lay in its ability to bring the facts 

 before the legislature and to ask for remedial legislation or 



32 National Conference of Charities and Corrections Proceedings, 1894, p. 11 ; 1897, 

 pp. 163-167. 



33 Ihid., 1892, pp. 15-18 ; 1902, p. 369. 



