36 



Indiana University Studies 



vision should have authority to investigate, to recommend, 

 to gather information, to arrange it in comparative form, 

 and to keep each institution under its supervision informed 

 of the doings of every other. It is supplementary to a Board 

 of Control and would give balance and safety to the system."^-^ 



The same year a member of the Kansas administrative 

 board declared: "The first thing it seems to me that is 

 brought out is this, that the two systems. Boards of Control 

 and Boards of Charities, are not necessarily inconsistent or 

 antagonistic to each other. . . . Now, a board that will devote 

 its whole time to the management and control of State institu- 

 tions is the kind of a board you want from any business point 

 of view. You want also to have a Board of Charities to 

 supervise and look over things and inform the public. I 

 cannot see where there is any particular antagonism in the 

 two systems."^® 



The first positive claim of a dual system was made the 

 same year (1907) by a member from South Dakota. ''We 

 have the institutions under what is called a Board of Chari- 

 ties and Corrections, but which is really a Board of Control. 

 . . . We have a Woman's Board which is required to go in 

 twice a year and look from cellar to garret and report di- 

 rectly to the governor, so you see there is model supervision 

 as well as control."^^ The Woman's Board referred to, how- 

 ever, did not have nearly as wide powers as are given the 

 Charities Commission under the Illinois dual system. In 

 1907, moreover, Minnesota, which had abolished her super- 

 visory board and established a Board of Control in 1901, re- 

 established the supervisory board under the name of State 

 Board of Visitors for Public Institutions.^^ There were then 

 three examples of the dual system in existence, in Minnesota, 

 New York, and South Dakota, tho the New York system was 

 peculiar, as explained before. 



In 1909 the National Conference first definitely discussed 

 the growing harmony between the two types of boards.^^ In 

 that year Illinois, after nearly six years' discussion and agi- 



^5 National Conference of Charities and Corrections Proceedings, 1907, pp. 45, 46. 

 '^^ Mr. H. C. Bowman, National Conference of Charities and Corrections Proceedings, 

 1907, pp. 48, 49. 



^'^ Mr. D. C. Thomas, National Conference of Charities and Corrections Proceedings, 

 1907, pp. 50, 51. 



68 See Minnesota Acts, 1907, Ch. 441, p. 626. 



6^ National Conference of Charities and Corrections Proceedings, 1909, p. 404. 



