Guild: State Supervision of Charities 47 



tory as the typical administrative board whose fiscal powers 

 are emphasized as a part of its regular administrative control. 

 That the method of fiscal control and the degree of such control 

 can be much better worked out than they are at present is quite 

 true. And this is one of the gravest problems that is now 

 pressing for solution. 



VIII. Supervision of Other Than State Institutions'^ 



For the past fifteen years the subject of supervision by 

 State boards over other than State institutions has been much 

 discussed. It is now the almost universal practice for State 

 boards to supervise county and municipal institutions, includ- 

 ing jails, lock-ups, poor farms, and asylums for the insane. 

 In some States the board must approve all plans for new 

 buildings or extensive repairs for such institutions ; in others 

 the board may even condemn buildings which are unsanitary 

 if such condition is not remedied in a reasonable time.^^ 



In other respects the subject of State supervision is still 

 an open question. The insane are usually regarded as a group 

 apart, and it is generally considered that this class of de- 

 pendents should be under the supervision of the State. There 

 are at least fourteen States^*^' which give their boards such 

 power! The prevailing idea is that the board should first of 

 all inquire whether such inmates are properly held, and 

 whether they are treated humanely. Some boards, especially 

 in States where there are separate boards over the insane, are 

 given power to determine the condition of persons restrained 

 of their liberty as insane, and to compel the release of any 

 adjudged sane. 



In general, there is a definite line drawn between public 



See National Conference of Charities and Corrections Proceedings, 1891, p. 156 ; 

 1893, pp. 40-42 ; 1899, p. 384, "Relation of State Board of Charities to Child Caring So- 

 cieties and Institutions", by Hugh F. Fox ; 1902, p. 130, report of committee ; p. 136, 

 "Private Institutions and Public Service," by Rev. D. J. M. Mahan, General Superin- 

 tendent of Catholic Charities of New York City, who says, "I do not think that there is 

 any private organization existing today that ought to exist which would fear inspection by 

 a State board of charities" ; pp. 367-373, discussion by J. R. Brackett, Dr. F. H. Darby, 

 and Max Landsberg ; 1903, discussion, pp. 508-512 ; 1904, p. 180, "Limits to State Control 

 and Supervision", by A. W. Clark. 



In Alabama, California, Indiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

 Tennessee, and Virginia the State boards approve plans for jails and infirmaries. 



^ California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New 

 York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 



