of the superintendent, Mr. Robertson. We made no inquiry as to Mr. Robertson's fitness for so great a trust, and shall assume that no charges against his good management could be maintained. We object to the amount of confidence reposed. We affirm that it is susceptible of the greatest abuse. No charitable institution has a right to intrust its superintendent with the uncontrolled authority which Mr. Robertson possesses. Such facts as the following are disclosed: Nearly all the expenditures are made by him in person. The bills are made out in almost every case to him in person. The treasurer stated that they were made out to him, except where he was not personally known, and then to the society. There is thus an abundant opportunity for patronage to dealers whom he might favor. The course of business is for the treasurer to hand over a considerable sum of money to him, for which he gives a memorandum note as evidence of a loan. He then pays out the money, takes vonchers, and returns them to the treasurer and takes up his note. No one knows whether the money is really paid to the persons by whom the bills purport to be drawn; everything is left to Mr. Robertson. As the treasurer said, he is in substance "the society." The directors rarely, if ever, visit the schools as a body; occasionally they go individually. It is not to be wondered at that the office of treasurer is one that goes begging, and which few like to hold. It should be added that the qualifications of the teachers are solely tested by Mr. Robertson, who also selects them.

But the worst feature of the management remains to be disclosed. During the past year Mr. Robertson expended about five thousand dollars ($4,937.02), substantially without vouchers. He presents periodically an account of small items expended by himself in cash and clothing and food, amounting in the aggregate to the sum already named. The entries in these accounts assume this form: "Cashes, $10; sickness, $2; two boys, $3," etc. By the term cashes, which appears over and a gift of money to the poor. plied that he pays out this money. [Senate No. 81.]

over again in his accounts, he means There is no evidence anywhere supThe officers of the society simply

5

pay the money to him and take his word for it. Nor is there any proof other than his "instinct " that he pays the money to worthy objects, or that the recipients of his bounty make a good use of it. On these points we are left wholly in the dark. In the hands of an unscrupulous or dishonest man what ready opportunity for peculation or favoritism among his poorer acquaintances! What power one must derive from the free use of so considerable sum of money! We do not wish to intimate that this trust has been intentionally abused. We have no knowledge whatever on the subject. Our controversy is with the directors. We desire to maintain that with such a system they ought not to be trusted with public moneys. In our opinion, money should not go into the secretary's hands. There should be some system of orders by which some grocer or clothier should give satisfactory evidence that the benefaction had found its way to the recipient intended. The cases must be rare in which money is needed. There should also be some means of investigation, by which the meritoriousness of a claim for charity should be tested. At present all is left to chance and to the immediate opinion of the secretary or superintendent, founded, perhaps, on some former information and perhaps on present impressions.

(2.) The charges for collection and " agency" are very great, amounting to nearly fifty per cent of the amount collected. The amount of the subscription for the year ending October, 1871, was $6,329.50. The payment to collectors and agents was $2,860.12. We could not ascertain distinctly what this agency was. It was some kind of service over and above the salary of the superintendent and teachers, janitors, book-keeper, etc. There could be no such legitimate services connected with State appropriations. The only inference that could be fairly drawn was that it cost $2,860.12 to collect $6,329.50. Collectors are now paid by the week, from fifteen to thirty dollars per week. It seems strange that for every dollar collected nearly fifty cents are expended in the process of collection. Can a charitable institution like this make a fair case for the bounty of the State when it has no fixed income, when its pro

perty is nominal, being burdened by a heavy debt, and when, in its desperate struggle for existence, it expends in collection half its receipts from subscribers, having as its net income from other sources than the State appropriations less than $4,000?

(3.) The cost of the institution when compared with the results achieved is too great. In order to bring the point clearly to view, it is necessary to state the amount of the income, the actual work done, and the amount of expenditures in connection with the number of officers employed. The receipts from the State for 1869, from special and pro rata appropriations, were $12,491; for 1870, $12,217.50; for 1871 (unpaid, but estimated at), $12,135.35. The city of New York also paid, in 1869, $4,336, and in 1870, $3,000. The private cash contributions were, in 1869, $6,247.27; in 1870, $4,649, and in 1871, $6,833.80. The current expenditures for the maintenance of the institution in 1870 were $24,912.67, and in 1871, $23,268.28. The number of scholars in the schools is best. shown by the days' attendance, as reported to the Comptroller There were for the year ending October 1, 1871, 108,255. Assuming five days to the week, there was, on the supposed average of 500 children, an attendance of that number for about forty-three weeks. But the register shows much irregularity of attendance. The whole number of scholars for the year is 1,314. The whole number of days' attendance was 108,255. This would give an average attendance of a little more than eighty-two days.

The expense during the year referred to for the maintenance and instruction of each child for the year, amounting to an average attendance of 500 for forty-three weeks, was about forty-six dollars and fifty cents. This sum is arrived at by dividing the sum of $23,268.28 by the number of scholars, 500. The subject may be regarded from another point of view. The amount bestowed for food and clothing and general charities was $3,539.97. If this sum be subtracted from the whole current expenditure, $23,268.28, there will remain for other items, such as instruction and general management, the sum of $19,728.31. If this sum be divided by the assumed

number of scholars (500) there will be attributable to the cost of instruction alone the sum of thirty-nine dollars and forty-five cents for each scholar. But the whole case has not yet been stated. Onethird of those children should be in the public schools. There would then be left for the care of the society about 335 scholars. The main reason given by the superintendent for the presence of these children is the influence they have with poorer children, and the advantage derived from their coming together in this same school. The cost of educating all is to be increased for the benefit of the poorer class, numbering 335. This view makes the annual cost for each of that number, for mere instruction, nearly sixty dollars (fiftynine dollars and six cents). This number is the result of dividing $19,728.31 (general expenditure) by 335. The Board of Charities has been credibly informed that this class of children can be properly instructed at an expense of not exceeding fifteen dollars per scholar. We are clearly of the opinion that the State should watch with a scrutinizing eye all efforts made by charitable institutions to supply extraordinary means of instruction to those who should attend the public schools. This is not only the dictate of a true economy but of a sound public policy. It is the interest of the State that the method of education should be homogeneous, at least as to those who are its own wards-the poor and the needy. On these grounds this Board is of the opinion that the Juvenile Guardian Society can give no good reason for claiming an appropriation from the State, and that the Comptroller will be justified in using such power as he may possess to withhold appropriations already made under apparent misconception of the facts. We should add that owing to pressing exigencies this report has been prepared without as much detailed exposition of the accounts as would have been desired by this Board. Enough has been adduced, however, to show the general character of this society. Through the kind co-operation of the book-keeper of the society, Mr. Mallory, a detailed account of every item of expenditure of the society during this year, ending October 1, 1871,

is in our possession, and will be at the service of the Comptroller for any further examination he may desire to have made.

By order of the Board of State Commissioners of Public Charities. THEODORE W. DWIGHT,

Vice-President and Acting President.

CHARLES S. Horт, Secretary.

NEW YORK, April 16th, 1872.

HOUSE OF REFUGE ON RANDALL'S ISLAND.

REPORT ON SPECIAL CHARGES PREFERRED AGAINST IT BY CERTAIN NEWSPAPERS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.

NEW YORK, August 12th, 1872.

The Board of State Commissioners of Public Charities having been requested by the managers of the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents in the City of New York to inquire into the validity of certain charges of mismanagement and abuse of official power, preferred against the superintendent and officers of the House of Refuge on Randall's Island by some of the leading newspapers in the city of New York, and having, in obedience to the aforesaid request, examined under oath a number of witnesses, also the daily journal, the punishment record and shop accounts kept with boys at the House of Refuge, with a view to investigate the substantive matters upon which such complaints were alleged to rest, do hereby report:

First. That as to the first charge, viz.: "That the said managers neglect to furnish the inmates of the said House of Refuge with good wholesome food in sufficient quantities for their proper nourishment :"

They find that such charge is not proved, but, on the contrary, that the character of the established dietary has been greatly improved within the past few years, and is in no degree amenable to censure.