Now, it seems to me that if the effort that we are making to save these people at the mouth of the stream was made to correct and to purify the source, that in the course of a generation we would have accomplished a great deal more than we shall going on in the same way.

You noticed in the first paper that was read this morning, I do not remember the gentleman's name, he spoke of insanity and its increase; he spoke of the great number of foreign names that were found in our insane asylums, but he did not say one word about stopping this great tide of immigration that is causing that increase in insanity in this country. There is one thing that might prevent something of the increase of insanity.

The last paper that was read, by Dr. Shanahan, I think, touched upon this considerably, upon the preventive portion, and I was glad to hear him say that some of the states of this union had already taken steps in that direction; I am greatly in favor of prevention rather than cure at the mouth of the stream. I am very anxious to get at the source and to stop this everlasting multiplication of crime and all sorts of diseases, insanity, epilepsy and all those things, and, as I said a moment ago, I believe that if our efforts were put in that direction much better results would be obtained.

I was very sorry to hear Mr. Wood make that remark in his paper I hinted at it in my introduction when he alluded to overseers of the poor, that they don't know and they don't care. Now, they may not know, but they do care; they do care.

One of the speakers said something about putting certain matters in the hands of the board of health, to take it away from the overseers of the poor. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I was a member of the board of health of my city for three years, secretary of the board of health for that time. I have been overseers of the poor a little more than three years. Now, was I any better man when I was in the board of health than I am as overseer of the poor? Has my nature changed in any way? Wouldn't I be just as good a man as overseer of the poor to take charge of a poor person, an insane person or an epileptic as I would be if I were a member of the board of health? I tell you in a republican form of government like ours we have to choose our officials from among the people, and the officers that we choose are just as good as we are. Any city will be governed just exactly as the people want to be governed. If it wants good men for mayors, if it wants good men for overseers of the poor, it will have them.

the

DR. CHARLES BERNSTEIN: Statistics show that thirty-seven per cent. of the inmates of the Elmira Reformatory are feebleminded. We find that about ten per cent. of all the population of prisons of New York State are feeble-minded. I think Mr. Wood's suggestion that we ought to find out before these cases are sent along where they should go, and send them to the proper place, is a good one. I would suggest that instead of sending them to the board of health, many of our cities have medical examiners in the schools, and these cases might be referred by the courts to the medical examiners in the schools. They can tell, I believe, better than the boards of health where those cases should go.

Another suggestion of Mr. Wood's, that the brighter girls should be cared for at Newark or some other place, and the lower grade or custodial grades should be cared for elsewhere, is all wrong. The brighter girls love to care for the lower grade; they love to take motherly interest in them and take care of them; therefore I think it is wrong to separate one grade of feebleminded from another. I do believe in the separation of sexes; I don't believe in the separation of one grade from another. I have had experience and know whereof I speak.

Mr. Wood spoke of the moral imbecile as a creature by himself. I don't know of a feeble-minded patient who is not a moral imbecile. One of the very first evidences of feeble-mindedness is the magpie propensity which leads them to pick up everything they see loose, whether a gold watch or piece of bright wire, and that is an evidence of their moral imbecility. They steal because they don't know any better. The moral imbecile is not a character by himself, differing from other imbeciles, and he is just as well off with the others as he is segregated at Sonyea. Everyone of the feebleminded is a moral imbecile.

Regarding the placing out of the feeble-minded, we have had some experience in Rome. About a year ago I was at the point of recommending to the board of managers that we adopt some system of placing out the brighter boys, not the girls. To lead up to that we started out a year ago to begin to place out some of our brighter boys, either allowing them to go back to their homes on the farm or allowing them to go anywhere, and I want to cite two or three cases. A boy from Painted Post went home and was home about three months trying to work on a farm. He did very well during the summer time, but fall came along and there was nothing much to do. After hanging around he began to practice self-abuse,

as these boys will, and one Saturday afternoon he stole a little girl and took her off into the woods and they were, not found until Sunday. That is one evidence. Another boy was allowed to go with his parent near Lyons last spring. He stayed home about three months. Along about the Fourth of July he and some other boys were playing with a gun. He got hold of that gun and in a fooling way he said "I guess I'll shoot you," and he did shoot a boy and killed him. Another boy lived near Niagara Falls, and his mother, the chief of police and everybody determined to get him back. We finally paroled him to see how he would get along in the country. That boy was there about three weeks and he shoved a boy over the rocks and killed him, and they hustled him back to us as fast as they could. I could cite other cases. I could cite some cases of girls that have gone out and gotten into trouble.

Another important thing is the controlling of marriage. I have distinctly in mind a case where a child was born out of wedlock to a man and woman, and the court stepped in and forced a marriage. As a result of this marriage three more feeble-minded children were born, the first one also being a feeble-minded child. Now, you talk about controlling marriage; why, our courts force marriage when feeble-mindedness is sure to result.

Those are some practical experiences I have come in contact with.

MR. WOOD: I feel like congratulating myself that my paper provoked discussion, which is the one thing most of all to be desired in these conferences. I desire to allude to the matters referred to by Mr. Hebberd in reference to the experience in Schuyler county in this state and the experience in the state of Kentucky. These experiences do not in the slightest degree conflict with the recommendation that I made. I especially and particularly emphasized the fact that there must be a system by which such results would be practically impossible as those that were obtained in Schuyler county, where it was under the control and direction of the county officials, and in the state of Kentucky, which is positively the worst thing that could be devised for the public care of these inmates. My whole paper hinges on the point that the state gives the proper, official and scientific attention to the classification of these inmates and placing out only such as it would be entirely safe to put in such positions. This statement answers Dr. Bernstein in regard to those very striking instances where there was improper placing cut.

This matter is so delicate that it needs to be guarded with the greatest care, but my object is to call attention to the fact that the experiences in other places, notably in Massachusetts, show that with a proper supervision and care the state can be greatly relieved, and that was the object of my paper. We cannot get people taken into the institutions. Letchworth Village, about to be opened, is to be filled the moment it is ready. We never take into consideration the great increase of the population in this state. Those who are planning and who have in the past planned for our charitable and correctional institutions have never considered the constant and tremendous increase in our population. We make provision for the population to-day; we never think of the necessity of making provision for the population of to-morrow, and with the increase that is going on, the state of New York cannot, by any reasonable means, care for all those who are depending upon it in public institutions. If we can eliminate a small percentage, even of those who now go to the institutions, by placing them where they will be under the most careful treatment outside of the institutions, it is the duty and it should be the privilege of the state to do it.

There is the whole point of my paper, and the statements of Mr. Hebberd in no way conflict with my position. The statements made by Dr. Bernstein only illustrate the force of the position which I have taken as to proper supervision. And I am thankful that I made the incidental remark, a side remark which is not in my paper, that overseers of the poor of the general townships don't know or don't care. We are all delighted that the city of Amsterdam has a commissioner of charities who is not on the average with the superintendents of the poor, but who, with his poetical imagination and most happy faculty of expression, has, as I also believe, a good heart and clear mind, and his words certainly indicated them.

CHAIRMAN HOWARD: The next on the program is a consideration of "The Relation of Boards of Managers to Institutions and to the Public," by Mrs. Milo M. Acker, of Hornell.

THE RELATION OF BOARDS OF MANAGERS TO INSTITUTIONS AND TO THE PUBLIC.

MRS. MILO M. ACKER.

Wasn't it Edward Everett Hale who said that a board was something that was long, and narrow, and never came to

a point? But, his pleasantry aside, no one knew better than he that in boards of managers, as in all allied groups of men and women, it is the personal equation that counts. And the breadth and point of a board depends upon its members having been chosen, not for political or social reasons, but truly to represent the best sentiments and interests of their community.

Our public institutions are many, and their methods of government vary. They are charitable and penal and reformatory; some are for the young, and some for the old; some aim to fit their inmates for normal life, others are purely custodial; so if a person wiser and more experienced that I in social service were asked to discuss the relation of managers to their institution and to the public, he would doubtless be skillful enough to draw a composite picture of the activities of managers which should suggest their varied aims and responsibilities; but, for myself, I am only familiar with the work of managers of our state hospitals. There must, however, be many points in which all good public servants are alike, and although we are told that the necessary qualifications of managers vary, from nothing at all in some cases, to those that are very distinctive in others, I am inclined to believe that every ideal manager has certain very definite qualifications.

That he shall expect to reap no possible advantage through the administration of the institution, and that his services shall be unpaid, goes without saying, for thus his activities can bring no legislative wrath down upon his head; but an appointment by the Governor carries with it no immediate patent on public confidence. A high standard should be and is required of every one who would serve the public. They must have clear eyes and an unbiased mind; they must prove that they are competent to advise and criticise before their work can count with the taxpayer and the philanthropist. They must be ready to do much disinterested work; they must be optimistic and sympathetic, loyal to their institutions, and, above all perhaps, must know how institutional affairs impress the average man and woman in the locality they represent.

As to the general duties of boards of managers, I agree with Miss Clark, who has said that "the first question to be decided is whether we are running institutions or trying to accomplish definite results with individuals," and I believe our unanimous answer would be the latter. To be sure we are required to report once a month on the condition in which we find buildings and grounds and health, clothing and bedding and food, occupation