more than $2 per week and coal to a family. It in no way differentiates between a family with one child or one in which there are fifteen children. The inconsistency of this is obvious. When the main supporter of the family is unable to care for his family properly from his earnings, it is necessary, under the present plan in many cases, in the City of Buffalo, for the Overseer of the Poor to furnish either $1 or $2 per week with coal, and the Charity Organization Society to make up the difference between that and that amount required to meet the family budget. If there is anything under the sun which has a demoralizing effect, it is to require a family to obtain aid from several different sources. In my opinion, the relief should all come from one source and in a sufficient amount that the family may be well cared for, well clothed, and under proper supervision.

Pension or public relief, whichever you may call it, should come directly from the public,- from the taxpayer. If we but realize it, 90 per cent of the children who are now in the orphan asylums are there because of either neglect on the part of the parents, or improper guardianship. Neglect and improper guardianship almost invariably are induced by improper social conditions that are allowed by the public; the use of intoxicating drinks undoubtedly being the foundation of it. The evil is allowed by the public who licenses it. Since the public is responsible for its maintenance, it should bear the responsibility of its result.

Furthermore, private charitable organizations have shown that they are unable to meet the demands made upon them in the care of widows with children, or to furnish other necessary relief, and a few years ago willingly acknowledged their inability to handle the problem. Their functions should be to assist in investigation and supervision and to act as friendly visitors.

In Erie County we do not allow a family to be broken up simply because of destitution. During the term of office of Mr. Herbert S. Sisson, Superintendent of Poor, children were maintained in the homes of capable mothers at the expense of Erie County, carrying out the plan of relief in much the same manner as that of the Child Welfare Board. This plan now prevails in many cases that the Child Welfare Board is not able to re

lieve because of the limitations of the powers of that Board. Summing up, I believe that Mrs. Einstein has covered the whole question in her recommendations when she says: "It is a question as to whether or not all children requiring public relief in the home or elsewhere should not be brought under the care of the Child Welfare Board." At present, the powers are altogether too scattered and there can be no real standard of efficiency fixed that is likely to be maintained. I would suggest that this Conference frame a bill to be presented to the next legislature to the effect that, when an alien has been a resident of the United States for five years, and in the event of his death, his widow is left with children by him, she be eligible for relief through the Child Welfare Board. The other recommendations heretofore referred should also be given consideration.

THE CHAIRMAN: It may be a little late, but the question is an important one and may be opened up for general discussion.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

MISS MARY VIDA CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the reflections cast by Mrs. Einstein on the motives of private charitable societies should not go unchallenged. I do not think they were fair. I myself belong to an association which did not oppose the bill, and I personally favored it, but I feel confident that the private associations which did oppose it had unselfish reasons for their opposition. They were societies which had had experience of a very unfortunate nature in the administration of outdoor relief by public authorities. Outdoor relief as it was administered in New York City and Buffalo and in other large cities years ago was so bound up with politics as to menace the welfare of the poor. Whether the fears of those organizations were justified, and whether at the present time such things can happen as happened in former days we shall perhaps find out in New York City during the next four years. Personally I do not feel that the success of this plan under a reform administration is necessarily a criterion of its permanent success. There were those, including the society that I am connected with, which did not oppose the bill, but which felt that it was very inadequate to meet the needs of the situation and on that account

did not support it. It was felt that the children of widows should not be altogether separated in this way from other classes of needy children; that the child of the woman who had been deserted by her husband was equally needy; that the child of thẻ woman whose husband was insane or permanently invalided was equally needy, and that what should be done was to improve the administration of existing law, which was adequate, rather than to make a new law. This, of course, would have been a possible alternative. Then there was also the feeling that this kind of relief should be left in the hands of the existing poor law authorities rather than in the hands of a new Board. Whether these reasons were good or poor they were honest; the private societies were disinterested and unselfish, and their opposition was not due to their wish to control the outdoor relief of the poor in their homes and keep this in their own hands. I do not feel that we should allow a statement of the kind that has been made to go completely unchallenged.

In Mrs. Einstein's paper she mentioned among the counties that did not have Child Welfare Boards, Westchester County. The reason for this is that under the previously existing law all the poor, including the children of widows and the poor children of every class, are adequately taken care of, better taken care of I suppose than in any other county of the state, under the model administration of the present Superintendent of the Poor, Mr. V. Everit Macy, and the splendid organization he has built there, working under the laws already existing. Of course there have been a number of new laws adopted subsequently but under the old poor law it was possible to give adequate relief of this sort. I do not think it is fair to speak of Westchester County in this connection without mentioning that it is an exception of this sort. So on behalf of the private charities which either opposed or did not support the bill I desire to say this word as to the honesty of their motives.

MR. ROBERT W. HEBBERD: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the papers that have been read, and to the discussion. I think that Mrs. Einstein had no reference whatever to the Society which Miss Clark represents. If I am correctly in

formed, and I think I am, that is not a private relief giving society. It does not give relief to the poor in their homes.

Now, when Miss Clark says that these private charitable agencies in New York wanted the law broadened, she states something which I had never heard of before, and I think I know about as much about the history of that legislation as anybody in the State of New York. They were opposed to it. They criticized freely but made no recommendations whatever that it should be broadened so as to bring in the families that were deserted by their husbands. They used all kinds of specious arguments in order to defeat it. One of the great leaders of the Charity Organization Society said in substance: "We don't want this kind of relief; what we want is a system of social insurance such as they have in Germany." That was some three years ago. I haven't heard that the gentleman referred to has raised his voice since that time to secure any system of social insurance such as they have in Germany. These societies claimed that they were doing all that was necessary. Mr. deForest and Mr. Bannard came before the Commission and stated in effect that they were doing all that was required for the care of the widow and her children, and it was only when we went into their records and proved that they were mistaken were we able to secure the passage of this legislation.

Those are the facts. If anyone doubts them all they have to do is to read the report of that Commission and they will find what I state is absolutely true.

MISS LILLIAN A. QUINN, Assistant Director, Department of Child Welfare, Westchester County: As Miss Clark has said, the Child Welfare Act isn't operating in Westchester County at the present time. Widows' pensions and mothers' allowances are being administered through the Department of Child Welfare which is under the Commissioner of Charities and Corrections. Possibly not enough work is being done, and I think undoubtedly the Board of Supervisors will increase the appropriation this coming year and more relief can be given to more families.

At the time the first appropriation for mothers' allowances

was given two years ago in Westchester County, (and it was increased the following year), it was given as relief to mothers with children under working age in their own homes. Otherwise the qualifications were very similar to those in the Child Welfare Act: that the mother must be a fit mother; the residence in the County was the same as Mr. Prince has suggested for the amendment to the present law, and that allowances be made to mothers who may be widows, or who may be deserted wives where the desertion has been long, and where it is probably permanent, or whose husbands are in prison or permanently incapacitated.

We feel we are now administering relief to mothers in their homes for dependent children as both Mrs. Einstein and Mr. Prince have suggested it should be administered and according to amendments which they wish. We have had the advice of many interested men and women in Westchester County and many sincere men and women, so it has not been in the hands of any one person or small group of people. I think Mr. Porter Lee, the chairman of the Board of Child Welfare, has been thoroughly in accord with the work done in the Department of Child Welfare under Mr. Macy, Commissioner.

MR. THOMAS L. QUIGLEY, of Buffalo: I just want to remark that in my experience as a member of the Erie County Board of Child Welfare I find we have widows whom we are assisting who would never think of going to private charity and in past years have been quietly suffering because of that fact, no matter how good the officials of these private organizations. There are widows in Erie County who would rather die than go to some of these private charities for assistance. I don't consider this a charity, but something that the State of New York owes those brave women who are trying to raise their children to be good respectable citizens.

MR. THURSTON: If the Board of Child Welfare, as has been recommended by Mrs. Einstein and Mr. Prince, should have the added powers of taking care of all the neglected and dependent children in the county or a larger area, it would be an illustra