Guild: State Supervision of Charities 



35 



little practical importance, for no great discussion has ever 

 taken place with the dual system for its theme. However, 

 the argument is brought up again and again in the years 

 following. 



In 1901 the office of Fiscal Supervisor of Charitable In- 

 stitutions was created in New York, but the situation occa- 

 sioned but a passing comment.*'^ In 1902 in the committee's 

 report on State supervision and administration occurs this 

 remark : ''Let us get clearly in mind that the chief duties of a 

 board of control, whether of one or of several institutions, 

 and the duties of a State board of supervision are not the 

 same. The less the laws try to make them identical, the 

 better. Nor need the existence of one board drive out the 

 existence of the other."'^'^ The same year an authority of repu- 

 tation said on the same topic : ''They [administrative boards] 

 would be very much less objectionable if they did not mean 

 • the abolition of the supervisory boards, but two central boards 

 cannot ordinarily be maintained in one State. If they could 

 • there would almost inevitably exist rivalry and conflict be- 

 tween them."*^- 



The next year, 1903, however, Professor George F. Can- 

 field of New Jersey declared: "Now there is a fifth possible 

 system, one which has hitherto been very little considered 

 and in fact has not yet, so far as I know, been put into opera- 

 tion anywhere. That would be a system of management and 

 control by a central authority, supplemented by central super- 

 vision."*^^ 



In 1907 the committee's report speaks of the "radical dif- 

 ference of purpose between the supervisory boards of chari- 

 ties and the boards of control". '^'^ The same year a Massa- 

 chusetts member of the Conference declared : "Two main prin- 

 ciples should be observed in the management of every public 

 charity — first, there should be one responsible head in control 

 of local administration (the Board of Control exemplifies this 

 principle alone) ; secondly, the acts of such a head should be 

 reviewed by some supervisory authority. A board of super- 



See report of Committee on State Supervision and Administration at National Con- 

 ference that year. 



National Conference of .Charities and Corrections Proceedings, 1902, p. 129. 

 1902, p. 151. 

 63 /bid., 1903, p. 495. 

 ^^Ihid., 1907, p. 20. 



