not mean this. In fact, it does not mean any of these things. It has not been interpreted to mean any of these things. What it really does mean is that the Association does not wish to duplicate the work of some other society. The reason why the resolution could not have meant what it seems on the surface to mean is that the action of the Widows' Society, the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the hospital are really beyond the control of any other association even if it does undertake to supply relief to the family.

be

But it so happens, and this is the part of the matter which really gave the action some significance, that there is a confidential arrangement I say confidential, it is no secret, but is not generally published because there is no reason why it should between the Charity Organization Society and the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor to the effect that whichever one happens to have charge of a particular family at the time when that family applies to the other one for assistance, retains the charge of it. The second association, whichever one it may happen to be, will not undertake to help the family, but will leave the responsibility with the one that has it. The two societies have joint records. There is no particular reason why it would be impossible for them to have charge of the same family at the same time. Neither society naturally will undertake the care of the family without the records, and if the other is helping the family, it has the records and the other could not have them.

Now that, therefore, has made it impossible for the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor to give relief to any family that is being helped in any way by the Charity Organization Society. If the Society is trying, in other words, to find employment for the family; if it is trying by moral oversight or personal attention or assistance in any way to improve the condition of the family, then that particular family cannot at the same time be helped by the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor.

Now, I do not think that this is either sound, scientific or wise. What it has led to, in fact, is the organization of another relief society which supplies relief to the families that are for the time being under the care of the Charity Organization Society. That was made necessary by this action. It did not seem to us that it was a particularly good thing to do, except that, the necessity arising, it had to be done. And so this society was organized, some of the people in it being workers in the Charity Organization Society and some of them being outside.

This has led to what the General Secretary of the Cincinnati Associated Charities called "a kind of traffic arrangement between the two societies, corresponding to that of the railroads by which they agree to divide the work between them society taking some of the families and the other others and dealing with them each in its own way.

one

This has brought about some very excellent results. I hardly like to call them results. Some things have been improved since this action was taken. Double visiting by the two societies, for example, has stopped, and there are certain other things on both sides that have been improved. All of these things, in my opinion, could have been and should have been done independently of this particular resolution, and are by no means necessarily the consequences of that action.

Undoubtedly the work of the two societies, so we confidently believe on our side, and so no doubt they believe quite as confidently on the other side, has improved, is improving this year and will improve next year. So that all the good results, changes for the better, that have been made by the two societies should not, I think, be attributed to this particular resolution, the explanation of which I have given with entire candor and frankness, and the result of which seems to me, as I say, simply this division of work between the two societies.

Personally I agree with the last speaker who said that there is a natural division of work and of functions that can take place

where two societies of this kind exist. For my part, notwithstanding the pleasant relations existing between the two societies, the situation in this community will not be ideal until some natural division of work shall have been worked out which cannot be justly compared with a traffic agreement.

Mr. FRANK TUCKER.- There are so many "ifs in Mr. De vine's statement, that I would like to tell you some of the "buts,” but I think it is scarcely the intention of the reader of the paper to discuss any particular situation. I rather interpret his paper to mean that we are trying to reach a better and broader method of dealing with dependent families, which should perhaps become common to all forms of activities whatever their origin or relationship may be. We will now pass to the second paper on the program. The reader of the paper is the Rev. Cameron J. Davis, rector of Trinity Episcopal Church of Buffalo, who has done much active work among dependent families. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you the Rev. Cameron J. Davis, of Buffalo.

THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO DEPENDENT FAMILIES.

things must

There is a wise saying in philosophy which means not be multiplied. If we paraphrase it, we may say it is disastrous to have many agencies with the same object, disastrous because it is a waste of force. This, it seems to me, we are in danger of forgetting to-day. A love of organization is tending toward over-organization. We have brotherhoods without number, a hundred leagues trespassing on each other's ground, many different charity boards with practically the same object. The loss in power by this scattering of effort, money and interest is enormous. It is like the familiar illustration of the nine churches in Lonelyville not one of which is able to support a pastor properly nor to carry a reform. The principle violated is this: if an existing organiza

tion is capable of attending to a certain work which is plainly its business, it is unnecessary and wrong to establish another distinct agency for the purpose. Now the oldest charity organization society in the world is the Church. It was created to carry a gospel of charity to the world. It is alive now, more than ever before, to the fact that its message must be a gospel of deed as well as of word; the poor must be relieved materially as well as spiritually. I know, of course, that there are still some who make the Church merely a manufactory of sermons and worship, which may or may not inspire an individual member to carry a basket of food to a poor friend, or even to give to a hospital. But these cases are few. Most of us are sure that no church can exist unless organized worship is followed by organized effort. A live church must be a working church. Moreover a cannon ball fired at a mark and bursting on its way may do some damage by its flying fragments, but the mark will quite possibly escape entirely; and even if a fragment hit it, it is only a fragment. If the ball, however, does not burst but strikes as a whole, the effect is great: the force of the whole is concentrated on a single mark. As a matter of fact, the relief of the poor is one of the definite marks at which the Church is aimed. It is a mistake to try to implant a spirit in an organization and then resolve into fragments to put the spirit into execution. Concentration is thus lost; power is lost. And therefore I hold that this work of relief belongs to the Church and is its duty and should not be taken away from it or delegated to a distinct organization created for the purpose. But just what does this mean? A host of reasons why it seems impossible at once present themselves. And I think by considering these difficulties we shall best see how far the Church can go in the matter. I would group them under three heads: First, want of enthusiasm and education in the Church; second, denominational rivalry and prejudice; third, lack of volunteer workers and inability to pay a sufficient corps.

I. Want of enthusiasm and education: The Church does not yet fully realize its responsibility in the matter. It needs an awakening which, if we can judge by what has been done to this end already, is slowly and surely coming. Moreover, the relief of needy families in their homes is a science of which a few have learned the rudiments while most men are ignorant even of them. "Is a family worthy?" asks one. And if the answer be "Yes," he goes straightway and pauperizes them and makes them unworthy as fast as he can. In what worth consists is often hard to tell. And on the other hand, some of us who have gone a little way into the question will let a family starve for fear of pauperizing it. To one the science of relief is easy because of ignorance; to another it holds a bugbear because he sees only a little way into it. When our theological seminaries take the advice of Miss Rich and others and give some training in the matter of poor relief, and when our pastors take pains to teach the science by precept and example, this difficulty will approach solution. As it is now, unless church workers are continually guided and continually instructed by adepts, the Church will do more harm than good in its efforts to relieve. The first limitation, then, growing out of this difficulty is: the Church must undertake the work under the advice and guidance of adepts.

II. The second difficulty is denominational rivalry and prejudice. This has often been touched upon. There are many good people who object to aiding one not of their way of thinking and who suspect an application for aid if it is not accompanied by one for admission to the Church. There is a widespread feeling that every church should care for its own poor. I confess there is something in this way of thinking that appeals to the unregenerate mind. And yet, apart from other considerations, it is an impossible method of work if we look for the best results. Many churches are too poor to aid their own, and how often do we hear of the rich church helping the poor one, even though it be of the