THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
have sometimes been over-emphasized, but the need of such discriminations and restraints can not be gainsaid, and the efficiency of our voluntarycharities largely depends on such cooperation and regulation as the charity organization societies seek to secure.
The greater part of philanthropic work, however,
is done by public agencies. The Christian religion
has filled modern society with what Benjamin Kidd
calls " a great fund of altruistic feel-
4. Public ing," which finds expression in a va- Administra- riety of public philanthropies. To tion of Aid. that extent the State has been Christianized. " AU-of-us," cooperating through civil institutions and public agencies, are seeking to care for the poor and the sick and the unfortunate. Let it not be forgotten that it is the enforcement of the teachings of Jesus Christ by his Church that has brought this to pass. Such results are not visible in non-Christian countries. The public philanthropies are largely institutional. Hospitals, almshouses and infirmaries, asylums for the insane, the blind, the deaf, the feeble-minded, the epileptic, homes for orphan children, sanatoriums for the victims of tuberculosis — all such institutions are provided for the most part gratuitously for the helpless poor and the unfortunate. Much of this work is of such a character that it could not well be left to voluntary agencies; the burden of it ought to be borne by the entire community. That the community is willing to bear it — that public opinion requires the imposition of this charge upon the public treasury is a signal triumph of Christian civilization.
The legitimacy and necessity of what is technically called indoor relief are thus apparent. But the State also undertakes to administer relief to the poor in their own homes, and for this service it is ill qualified. If, indeed, such conditions as prevail in the German cities could be secured — if the municipality could enlist a large force of its most intelligent and competent men and women to serve as visitors, this work might be done by the public with the best results. In Berlin more than 3,000 visitors of the poor are appointed by the city. They are selected with great care, are men of character, and are compelled to serve. The districts are small and the service is not onerous, but it is not optional; the penalty of refusal or neglect is disfranchisement. With such a force of visitors the city can dispense relief intelligently. But it is doubtful whether any such service as this could be secured by an American city; the im-estigating force is always absurdly inadequate and generally incompetent; the officials charged with this duty are frequently careless and sometimes corrupt; the funds are used for political purposes, and, as a rule, the needy are neglected and impostors get the lion's share. For this reason some American cities have abolished public outdoor relief and leave the care of the people in their own homes to voluntary charity, sometimes employing the associated charities or other voluntary organizations to do the work of investigation, and granting relief upon their recommendation.
It thus becomes evident that the conditions of
philanthropic work in America at the present time are somewhat chaotic; the work is not well systematized; there is much conflict of 5. Principles jurisdictions and much confusion of of Work, methods; there is great need of some revision of the entire program of charitable relief. The principles which should govern this administration have been somewhat roughly indicated in this survey. (1) It is important that the State should more clearly define its own philanthropic function; that it should determine how much it can wisely undertake in behalf of the dependent classes. The institutional work in which it is now widely engaged should, for the most part, be carried forward. If public outdoor relief is to be attempted this relief should be given in such a way as not to demoralize the recipients. The work to be done in such cases is largely the repair or the rebuilding of damaged character. It ought to be in the hands of those who have some skill in the restoration of souls. If the State can not furnish officials who know how to save men and women, it would better leave this work to be done by others. But it will still be necessary that the law stand near to help the volunteer workers. There is many a broken family the wreck of which is caused by the brutality and dissipation of the husband and father, and the wisest help will fail to lift the family out of misery unless he can be separated from them and subjected to a discipline in which he may recover his manhood. He ought also to be kept at productive labor and his net earnings turned over to his family. Charity workers are constantly meeting complications of this sort in which the power of the State must be invoked for the protection of the weak and the enforcement of conjugal or parental responsibility. If, therefore, such cooperation as this between the State and the volunteer workers is to continue, the terms upon which it is carried on should be explicitly defined by law. (2) It is also needful that the churches should come to a clear understanding of their relation to this entire problem of philanthropy. If they have inspired the commonwealth to undertake these works of compassion they have done well, but their work is not yet done; it is hardly conceivable that an institution which represents Jesus Christ in the world should ever be able to discharge itself from responsibility for the poor, the sick, and the unfortunate. It has no business on its hands more urgent than this; it can never convince the world of the genuineness of its commission unless it is addressing itself intelligently and efficiently to this task. (3) The churches of every town or city should recognize their joint responsibility for the care of all the poor and the miserable and the unfortunate of their community. If the State has taken over some portion of it, still the churches are responsible for seeing that the work of the State is humanely done. This is a work that can not be done by the churches without systematic cooperation. If there were no other reason for the union of the churches of the community, this would be reason enough. The Christian people of every city are confronted by poverty, sickness, distress, and misfortune. They can not count themselves dis-