48 



Indiana University Studies 



and private institutions. In a decision of the Court of Ap- 

 peals, New York, on January 9, 1900, it was held that the 

 term "public charitable institutions'' meant those institutions 

 receiving financial aid from the State. In this field it is 

 now generally held that the State not only has the right but 

 also the duty to supervise all institutions which it supports 

 in whole or in part.^^ In such institutions there is the addi- 

 tional motive of ascertaining that the funds have been prop- 

 erly expended, since they are State funds appropriated for 

 that purpose. At first such supervision or inspection was 

 strenuously opposed by the heads of institutions, and charity 

 authorities have held that the State should not be too inquisi- 

 torial in such matters. The modified opinion prevalent today 

 is that, while the State may and ought to inspect such insti- 

 tutions, its aim should be primarily to discover whether the 

 methods and results have in the main been satisfactory, rather 

 than whether every penny of the State's money has been 

 most judiciously expended. 



In several States the State board is given the supervision 

 of all charitable institutions incorporated in the State. It 

 is claimed that such incorporation brings these institutions 

 under the class of public charitable institutions. Such cor- 

 porations are exempted from taxation and it is urged that 

 this is virtually an indirect grant of State money to them.^^ 



By far the greatest controversy has arisen over State su- 

 pervision of what are called strictly private institutions. 

 Among these are included those receiving public aid thru 

 donations, subscriptions, etc. For the past ten years there 

 has been an increasing sentiment favoring State supervision 

 of such institutions. This has been vigorously fought by pri- 

 vate institutions everywhere as a usurpation of power on the 

 part of the State. In practice relatively few States have 

 given their boards wide powers in this regard. There is 

 noticeable, however, in the last few years a definite tendency 

 upon the part not only of State charity workers, but also of 

 heads of private institutions, to favor such inspection and 



s'^ California, Colorado, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, and Oklahoma are 

 among those conferring power upon the State board over institutions receiving State aid 

 (which usually includes county and municipal aid). Missouri includes institutions receiv- 

 ing public aid and bequests. 



88 See report of committee. National Conference of Charities and Corrections Pro- 

 ceedings, 1903, p. 359. Massachusetts, Virginia, and Wisconsin specifically confer certain 

 authority over charitable institutions which are incorporated in the State. 



