World-Currents in Charity, Theory, and Practice.—In the past there has been great lack of system, co-operation, and regulation of all charitable institutions. The tendency now is toward a federation of philanthropy. As persons of various occupations, trades, arts, and professions federate and confer together with advantage to themselves and the public, so charitable workers and students are forming associations in local, state, national, and even international societies for kindred purposes.
An uppermost question is that of state supervision and control of public and even of private philanthropy and relief. In the administration of penal and charitable institutions the necessity for central control has been everywhere legally recognized except in the United States. In Germany alone there is no such system of public supervision in relation to outdoor relief. This defect is due to the efficiency of the municipal system, which is independent of voluntary charity. By combining central supervision with local responsibility for details, the best results are obtained. State boards of control should be salaried administrators and experts, but it is desirable that they be subject to supervision; otherwise such boards will come to feel infallible and ominscient. Secrecy, which hides all perils and abuses, is unavoidable with a board of control without a legal method of supervision independent of it. Reports on forms provided by statute are deceptive; there is no substitute for the inspection of a living person. There are various methods of organizing for free and independent inspection of public institutions. In the English prison system a board of visitors has considerable influence. The New York Charities Aid Association is a typical example of an independent society, legally recognized and exercising a vast influence.
Private charities must ultimately be subjected to governmental supervision and control. This suggestion will be resented by those who have been brought up in the frontier conditions. Some states have already made progress in that direction, beginning with those associations which receive subsidies. It is true that such control is often a mere pretense, and, at the best, public inspection is not infallible, even with national banks and interstate commerce boards. But this is true of administration generally in American cities and commonwealths, and the remedy lies in improving the service, not in inviting anarchy to remain.
Notable efforts are now being made in the matter of preventing crime, pauperism, etc., by instituting savings banks, playgrounds, insurance against economic ruin from accidents, sickness, and the feebleness of old age. So important has this subject of preventive methods seemed to many practical workers that the National Conference of Charities and Correction in 1902 provided for a commission of seven persons to consider and report on plans for insurance of wage-earners against accident, sickness, invalidism, and old age. The commission is to be continued for at least three years before making its final report. It has already mapped out an investigation and divided the topics among the members, and invites contributions.—Charles Richmond Henderson, in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. J. D.
Conditional Condemnation of Criminals.—In 1842 an English magistrate, without precise legal authority, began the practice of suspending all condemnation in the case of young delinquents brought before him, placing them under the oversight of a suitable person and reserving the right to apply the penalty later, if necessary. In case of a second offense by the same child, the two acts were subject to a double condemnation. Later this practice became legalized. In 1869 the state of Massachusetts, inspired by the English example, inaugurated a similar practice, appointing a probation officer to look after each young delinquent. The period of probation for each was two years. The policy having produced good results, the city of Boston in 1878 extended the law so as to apply to adults in the case of the first offense, or in case of an offense of little importance. Twenty or more of the United States have since adopted the same general policy.
In 1886 New Zealand passed an act permitting the conditional release of first offenders on probation.
France and Belgium adopted the conditional condemnation in the year 1891.
A peculiarity of the French system is that the court pronounces condemnation and fixes in advance the exact amount of punishment, then suspends the punishment upon condition of good behavior. The advantage of this system is that it gives the
