Guild: State Supervision of Charities 37 



tation, finally decided upon the dual system as the best. 

 This decision was reached after careful analysis and compari- 

 son of the merits of many State systems, and the result is 

 the first attempt to set up the dual system in preference to 

 any otherJ^ 



In brief, the whole argument for the dual system may be 

 stated in this way: for efficiency and economy the manage- 

 ment of State institutions should be centralized, but there is 

 as much demand for a State supervisory agency when there 

 is a board of control over all State institutions as when there 

 are separate boards of control, or trustees, for each institu- 

 tion.'^^ And further, experience has shown that there are two 

 distinct functions to be performed, so that the supervisory 

 board still has an important place where there is a State 

 board of control. 



As has been said, so far there has been no wide recogni- 

 tion of the issue — dual system versus the supervisory or ad- 

 ministrative system — but from the tendency in the past and 

 from present experience, it seems safe to predict that in the 

 future the discussion on State supervision and administra- 

 tion will turn more and more on this issue rather on the old 

 issue of supervisory system versus administrative system. 



Thus far there has been no positive argument against the 

 dual system, perhaps because the issue has not been defi- 

 nitely recognized. This system seems to answer all the ob- 

 jections raised against either of the other systems, while it 

 has retained all the merits of both. There is an administra- 

 tive board bringing fiscal efficiency to the State institutions 

 and economy to the State. There is also an advisory board to 

 advise superintendents, supervise public organizations, study 

 the whole charity problem, and investigate acts of the admin- 

 istrative board or the heads of institutions. 



The only objection to the dual system that appears is that 

 there is danger of antagonism between the two State boards. 

 In the dual administrative system, such as is found in Rhode 

 Island, California, and New York, there is doubtless such 

 danger. In States of strictly the Illinois type conflict of 

 authority is not possible, inasmuch as the supervisory board 



70 Reports of Board of Public Charities, Illinois, 1908, 1909. 



'^^ National Conference of Charities and Corrections Proceedings, 1903, p. 503, discus- 

 sion by Ernest P. Bicknell, Timothy Nicholson, and Judge Robinson. 



