Guild: State Supervision of Charities 



55 



civil service requirements and the development of public sen- 

 timent which will demand that the State institutions be kept 

 out of politics. These evils are no respecters of boards or 

 systems, and can be found as easily where the supervisory 

 system exists as where the administrative board holds sway. 

 The situation in New Hampshire, however, is of considerable 

 interest as an experiment in an hitherto unexplored field. 



But what can be said of the dual administrative system 

 which was set forth on page 45? Not only is there such a 

 system in several States at the present time, but the tendency 

 seems to be in the direction of increasing the number. In 

 1915 seven governors°^ in their messages advocated the cre- 

 ation of purchasing agents to have charge of the purchase of 

 supplies for the State institutions. The movement, tho recent, 

 seems to be gaining in popularity. 



There is little information as yet upon which one may be 

 justified in basing a positive opinion. But there seem to be 

 two phases to this new tendency. One is towards the creation 

 of State purchasing agents who are not primarily over the 

 State institutions and whose function is to systematize the 

 purchase of all State supplies and to secure to the State the 

 advantages of large-scale buying. The other is the more dan- 

 gerous form, where the finances of the institutions are di- 

 vorced from the other matters of administration and a fiscal 

 agency over the State institutions has discretionary power in 

 the control of finances. The former may be advantageous. 

 Certainly the California Board of Control has proved a saving 

 to the State. The latter has not yet proved to be a harmoni- 

 ous element in the State system. Oregon has abandoned a 

 purchasing board for a board of control, and New Hampshire 

 has subordinated the purchasing agent to a general admin- 

 istrative board. The only definite investigation on the subject 

 is the report of Mr. Wright already many times referred to, 

 and that shows that there are certainly dangers in the system. 

 It may well be that as the experience of the existing boards 

 becomes available the proper powers and duties of the latter 

 may be sufficiently determined so that it will fit into the 

 system without the present friction. The State purchasing 

 agency may find more ready acceptance, but it is difficult 

 to see the need for such a separate agency under either the 



Arizona, California, Connecticut, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, and South Dakota. 



