its origin to vitiated ancestry, the results of whose affinity could have been easily foretold. On the other hand, it must be clearly understood that there are plenty of degenerates and defectives whose conditions can be traced to no known causes, or such, at least, as could have been correctly interpreted and the results prevented. A markedly feeble-minded person cannot be the parent of a normally bright child unless the other parent is mentally bright and strong. These opposite conditions are not apt to unite, but those on the same plane may; and here is where legal interference can and should be provided for.

A person suffering from chronic genuine epilepsy could not procreate perfectly healthy children, though cases are well known where one parent of a large family, apparently healthy and free from any suspicion of any form of neurosis or degeneration, has occasional epileptic attacks.

To determine the safety standard in such a case requires a careful discrimination, based upon a thorough knowledge of heredity as well as a knowledge of the family history of the case. The same is true of the difficulty of differentiating between the degrees of insanity and its influence on the children of the patients.

The argument holds good in a measure in reference to the dipsomaniac and other individuals of the other classes enumerated, except that these conditions presuppose a greater degree of personal responsibility on the part of the individual for their existence, and they are sure to bring more or less actual injury or suffering to the consort, if not to their progeny: hence there is an element of criminal liability which justifies interference.

As to increasing immorality, the circumstances resolve themselves, even at the worst, into a question of choice between legalized relations that surely entail suffering and misery upon succeeding generations and immoral relations with very slight probability of offspring. The choice is easily made; and, the more clearly the impedimenta are determined, the less the liability of involving innocent persons.

In conclusion, then, I would emphasize the fact that legislation is applicable so far as it can be based upon exact knowledge, and no farther. The laws of heredity and generation are as yet but little understood; and, while the increments of knowledge slowly increase, there can be no doubt that all that tends to personal health and righteousness according to the well-established standards of the ages will tend to the improvement of the race.

IX.

Destitute and Neglected Children.

SAVING THE CHILDREN.

BY AMOS W. BUTLER,

SECRETARY INDIANA BOARD OF STATE CHARITIES.

In consultation with the members of this committee, as to the subject of our report, several were desirous of presenting the progress of the work for dependent and neglected children during the past century, and a statement of its condition in America at the beginning of this year. In the brief time at my disposal, it will be possible to give but an outline of what has been done, and of the present status of the work. The valuable papers by Mr. Homer Folks in the Charities Review give quite well the history of efforts for these unfortunate ones in America. I wish to express my appreciation of them, and my obligation for much information found therein for this paper.

At the opening of this century the boundary between the civilization of the white man and native barbarism in this country was east of the Alleghanies. It extended through New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. It has followed the course of the sun on its journey to the West, and has passed away. The settlements of white men fringed the shores of all the seas, and extended inland beside the navigable waters. In 1801, with a single exception, the only public institutions in which children were maintained were almshouses, known also in different states as poor asylums, and infirmaries. In some states the poor were cared for by families under contract. They were often let to the lowest bidder. Both adults and young were frequently bound out. The needy were aided in some places by outdoor relief. Little or no attention was paid to neglected children. The young offender and the hardened criminal went

to the same prison, where they associated together. Not a single juvenile reformatory existed in this land; nor was one thought of for years afterward. The problems of public dependence were not thrust upon the people. the people. Save in the larger cities, instances of want were few. Elsewhere, generally, the needy were helped by their neighbors.

The almshouse was the primary charitable institution. Shortly after the middle of the eighteenth century the larger cities began to feel the need of some sort of provision for their poor. The sick, the crippled, infirm, those mentally defective, and orphan children appealed to them for care. The almshouse was the sole institution for all needing help. Into it were gathered all who needed care; and from it have gone forth, as successive swarms from a hive, the varied groups of dependants into institutions designed for each particular class. The insane, the sick and crippled, orphans, the deaf, the blind, the epileptic, one group after another has been taken away as the sentiment in state after state reached a higher plane.

The year 1801 opened with our Union, composed of sixteen united states. Therein, so far as the records show, there existed but one public orphans' home, the Orphans' House at Charleston, S.C., opened in 1794, but organized several years before that. This has continued until now, a creditable and helpful institution. There were private institutions for the care of orphans before this. Perhaps the first in this country was that connected with the Ursuline Convent at New Orleans. This convent cared for orphans from its beginning, in 1727. Following this was one in Savannah, Ga., established in 1738 by George Whitefield. Toward the close of the century there were organizations effected for the care of children in New York in 1797, Philadelphia in 1798, Baltimore in 1799, and Boston in 1800. When the new century opened, there were six societies for the care of orphans.

Possibly the earliest method practised for caring for dependent children was that of "binding out" under what was termed, in some states, the master and apprentice law. This has been sometimes called indenture. How far this custom goes back into the early history of our country, I have been unable to learn. It is said to have been in use in Massachusetts in 1703, in New York in 1754, in Pennsylvania in 1771, in Maryland in 1797. It was the sole general agent in making provision for children at the beginning of

the last century, and continued a notable factor until well toward its close. In fact, in some states it is still upon the statute books, and is occasionally invoked to remove a child from bad surroundings. Sept. 17, 1807, the legislature of Indiana Territory passed an indenture act providing that the overseers of the poor, by the consent of the justice of the peace, might bind out orphans and children whose parents were unable to maintain them. A similar law was later enacted by that state. After the middle of the century the practice of binding out fell more and more into disuse.

The custom of keeping children in almshouses was one that was hard to get away from. Doubtless many ideas looking to such a course were advanced long before any active steps were taken or any results obtained. Even in those states whose boast it is that they are progressive, it was hard to shake off the old custom. Ohio provided for the removal of children from infirmaries, by authorizing the establishment of county children's homes, in 1866. In 1883 it prohibited the retention of children over three years of age in county infirmaries. In 1898 this was reduced to one year. In 1881 Indiana made possible the removal of children from the poor asylums by providing for children's homes similar to those in Ohio.

In certain counties the law was put into effect. It was not until 1897, however, that the legislature prohibited keeping children between the ages of three and seventeen years in poor asylums. This law has generally been observed. Michigan took similar action in 1871. Massachusetts provided for the separation of children from adult paupers in 1872, although there was partial separation in Boston in 1834. Other states promptly followed by making provision: New York, 1875; Wisconsin, in 1878; Pennsylvania and Connecticut, in 1883; Rhode Island, 1885; Maryland, 1890; New Hampshire, 1895; New Jersey, 1899.

In the effort to solve the problem of the best method of caring for the children outside of almshouses, several different plans have been tried. Each state tried to utilize a system of child-caring in use within its limits. Ohio put the children in county orphans' homes; New York contracted with private charities to keep them in their institutions for orphans; Massachusetts provided for boarding them in private families; Michigan had them committed to the State Public School. Other states have followed along these different lines; and possibly some which have not prohibited children in their almshouses,

if the change should come, would utilize private child-saving agencies to put the children into families. We are all familiar with the question of institutional care against family homes for dependent children. Some of these agencies have been first on one side of this subject and then on the other. The discussion of these two propositions has lingered long and sounded loud as time has gone on, but each has borne fruit. The majority of students have come to believe in both the institution temporarily, to prepare a child; and a home in a good family for its care. So far as I have heard from the members of this committee, they all believe thoroughly in that practice. We have come to recognize that the best place for a dependent child is in a good family home. There it may grow up in the natural way, learning the duties and responsibilities of life and breathing the air of independence.

:

As has been stated, the first movement for caring for dependent children came through private organization. Other institutions for orphans began to be added to the six previously existing. The first of these, the New York Orphans' Home, was founded in 1806. The next year an orphan school in Baltimore undertook the care of children. This later became known as the Baltimore Female Orphan Asylum, and now as the Baltimore Orphan Asylum. The Boston Asylum for Indigent Boys was established in 1813, and the Orphan Society of Philadelphia in 1814. The Washington City Orphan Asylum was founded in 1815. The first organization of this kind in this century in the Mississippi Valley was the Protestant Orphan Asylum at Natchez, Miss., founded in 1816. The next year the Poydras Female Orphan Asylum was established in New Orleans, St. Mary's Female Orphan Asylum, Baltimore, and the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum, New York. The first colored orphan asylum was established by the Friends in Philadelphia in 1822. The Orphan Asylum at Cincinnati, the first institution of this kind west of the Alleghany Mountains, was founded in 1833. Following these, the number grew rapidly as institutions were organized in one part of the country after another. Generally, these have been supported by private contribution; but in some states they have been the regular recipients of state aid. According to Mr. Folks, there were in the United States 21 private orphan asylums up to 1831, 26 more by 1841, and a total of 77 in 1851.

About this time a movement to place dependent children in