a convention at New York, I presented the same views that have been expressed in regard to sowing these children broadcast in the West. It brought on me certain censures, and the result was, an agent was sent out from New York to look into the disposal of the New York children, and report the result of his investigation, which was very little. But the fact does stand out perfectly clear that children so thrown out from the cities are a source of great corruption in the country places where they are thrown. The report I speak of was not clear upon the subject at all. Very few such children are useful, or remain permanently in the home where they are first placed. And though there must be some relief for the cities, and I am the last person to question the conscientiousness of these agencies, yet the remark is true which I heard from a gentleman in Massachusetts: "It may be good for New York, but very bad for the West." I think the suggestions brought out in regard to Massachusetts are admirable. Men who take children out West are apt to look at a boy or a girl just to see how much they can get out of them, just as they would look at a cow, or a calf or a colt, to see how much they can get out of them. These children should be constantly looked after, to see what kind of a home they have. There are many families in which they can well be put. The idea of home life is beautiful, is grand; it is God's plan; it is the place for the most healthy development of manly qualities, and yet there are very many homes in the West unfit for children to live in. I am glad that in this Conference some of these ideas have been brought out, and I hope that they may be extensively diffused throughout the country. The PRESIDENT (Dr. Byers): I should be glad, if we had now the opportunity, of hearing others and at greater length upon this question. In a convention where this same question was discussed, I recollect a prominent gentleman said that they were stripping New York of the best boys to send West, and were leaving the worst in the city. [Laughter.] CHARLES THOMAS, of Cincinnati: I want to speak one word in reply to the wholesale condemnation by Dr. Howe - of the congregate system of reforming children without reference to locality or surroundings. Now, I want to say to this Conference (and perhaps I am old enough to say it) that I had something to do with the inauguration of the House of Refuge, in Cincinnati. I also had something to do with the inauguration of the Ohio Reform School, at Lancaster. I happened to be in an official capacity in the city of Cincinnati at the time first mentioned, and happened, also, to be in the Legislature when the Reform School was created. Now, I would say to those of you who have the congregate system in your States, "do not be discouraged." There is a great reformation going on in that system. I know it. I know it from experience. One trouble with us is that we have a pet system, and become prejudiced against others. I have no prejudices against any system that will reform the children. I am not going to discuss this subject further, I am going to invite every one of you who can, to come and see for yourselves how the system works with us in Cincinnati. There has been a great reformation in the congregate system in the past few years. Formerly, the rod ruled; now, kindness rules, and through kindness these children are reformed and enlightened, and brought up as useful citizens. Visit our institution dining-room, and you will find what a great many homes have not, - clean table-cloths and good china ware for the children. You will find flowers in abundance on particular days, and particularly on the Sabbath to impress upon the children that it is a holy day. I could say a great deal more in reference to the congregate system. The proper care of children requires judgment and sympathy for the children. Do not spend so much money in building great and costly houses; do not tear down one system to build up another until you have examined carefully. "First be sure you are right, and then go ahead!” Mr. P. CALDWELL, of Kentucky: For twenty-four years I have dealt with children in some form or shape, as teacher or superintendent of reformatories. In Louisville, Kentucky, I have now been engaged fifteen years. I have been employed both in institutions where the family system, and where the congregate system, was adopted. I have served in almost every capacity in reform schools, from the blacking of shoes to preaching in the pulpit. In what I say now, "I know whereof I speak." Our institutions in Louisville are on the congregate plan. We have them on the same ground, occupying sixty or seventy acres. have a main building, and then we have a female house of protection, and then we have a colored house of industry. In order that I may better get at what I want to say, I will read an extract from an address which I delivered before the State Teachers, Association, of Kentucky, at Bowling Green, two years ago, in which I discussed this question: We "I am inclined to believe that the good accomplished by the family system has not been on account of the system itself, but in spite of it. Its practical operation is attended with several serious objections. Among them are the want of steady manual labor, during the winter months, and the many hours of idleness which are the result; the lax discipline, which is inevitable where so many bad, vicious boys are worked together, and the unlimited authority given to these house-fathers and elder brothers. I have higher aims than to seek to depreciate or prejudice the public mind against those who are engaged with us in kindred enterprises because they do not adopt our method. I am too deeply conscious of my own infirmities and imperfections to deride or despise my fellows because they differ with me in opinion. I only seek to analyze certain factors, which the friends of this system claim as their available forces for good, and to note their results. If my analysis leads me to a conclusion that does not agree with theirs, the fault is not mine. I appeal to the testimony of facts, and am willing to abide strictly by their decision. Experience has shown that physical and mental work-regular, steady concentrated work—is absolutely necessary to reform. Neither a thief nor a harlot can be reformed until they love steady, plodding, continuous work. It has further shown that discipline is the right arm of every true reformatory system. If this discipline is lax and fitful, if irregularities are winked at, or, if punishment is vindictive, ill-tempered and violent, it will certainly prove ineffectual. Discipline should not only restrain and control with steadiness and firmness, with unwearying patience and tenderness, but it should counsel, encourage, protect, console. A house-father or elder brother should be free from the disease he attempts to cure. How often might the youth of the institution fling back into the faces of their harsh and arbitrary masters a fragment of the 'Sermon on the Mount: Pull first the beam out of thine own eye.' Considerable observation has led me to the decided conclusion that the family system has failed to reach the best results. Only when the directors of such institutions can place men in immediate charge with the sound, practical sense, the high moral purpose, the steady self-control, that are imperatively requisite, can they claim for their system superior excellence." It is men, Mr. President, and not systems that work reform in these institutions. And Mr. Howe, of Connecticut: I would simply say to Mr. Thomas that he greatly misjudges me if he thinks I make war upon any system. I, perhaps, may not have had as much experience as some others in these matters, but I have had a little experience in the family system; I have, also, had some experience in the congregate system; I am now in a congregate school myself. I have been superintendent of one for the last two years and know a little about it, if not much, yet a little. I am able, from the very fact that I have had this experience, to see the difference. because of this experience I have been able to judge of the spirit of the boys in these two institutions. It is no merit in a boy to do right and be good because he is compelled to. [Applause.] I make no war upon my friend Thomas's school; I make no war upon the family school; I make no war upon the congregate school, for I am in a congregate school myself. I make no war upon the school, I make war upon the principle. When a man says that he can reform me by shutting me up, I know that he cannot do it. No school can reform boys by keeping them confined. Let them out on a farm; let them go into the garden and work; let them go into the green-house, anywhere to get out. I have never, in my two years' experience, seen one of these boys when out ask to go in. On the other hand, they all ask to go out. The boys love to play. Let them play. They enjoy it. It is natural they should. We have been boys ourselves, and we know what pleased us. Now, I, too, speak from experience in both kinds of schools, and I close as I began, that in my paper I intended to make no war upon any school or system. Dr. C. E. CADWALLADER, of Philadelphia, Pa., spoke of the reform schools in Pennsylvania, and said he was able to bear tribute to their excellence. He thought, all conditions being equal, the family system was the better. The capabilities of the child were certainly developed better under that system, and all natural considerations point to that as a natural fact. The people were satisfied with their system in Pennsylvania, as Mr. Thomas was with his. We have both systems there. H. H. GILES, of Wisconsin, then offered the following motion, which was carried: Resolved, That the Business Committee be requested to report a rule providing for the limitation of the length of papers, to be read at the next Annual Conference, to thirty minutes. CAUSES AND PREVENTION OF PAUPERISM. I. REPORT BY DR. LUTHER, OF PENNSYLVANIA. (Read Thursday, July 1, 1880.) Before proceeding to the consideration of the subject which is assigned me, it is necessary to glance at some of its main features. That the pauperism of the present day is very unlike that for which relief was provided in the earlier periods in this country, is known to all. The increase of the dependent classes occurred at a uniform rate and conformed to the natural increase of population. It is no longer thus limited. The genuine pauper, the friendless man or woman, who from age, disease, or other unavoidable disability is unable to earn the food and shelter which God intends for all, become properly the charge of society. But we owe no debt to fraud or idleness; neither policy, humanity, or Christianity prompt us to harbor or succor any of this class. In each of the poorhouses will be a proportion of the debased and idle, who utterly refuse to work, and who prey upon the community, either by beggary or crime. The admission of this idle and vicious element is not only a flagrant wrong to the tax-payers, who support these institutions, but to the worthy poor for whom they were established. A marked distinction exists between pauperism and poverty. The one signifies entire reliance upon charity for support, hence, a deteriorated condition of character; while the other suggests only want, with some remaining resources, or some possibility of voluntary effort. The pauperized state, as we find it, is often hereditary, transmitted entire, or in a condition or tendency to be developed or diverted during the life, as circumstances may favor or oppose; or it is cultivated (without heredity), by the unfavorable surroundings of childhood and youth, in such particulars as houselessness, unhealthy sanitary conditions, and by the bad influences of degraded associates. Or, again, it comes later in life, out of misfortunes in business, or otherwise, through domestic afflictions, and from disease and accidents, mental and physical. The hereditary paupers, and they of early yielding, are rarely, if ever, conscious of their low state; while those of later development submit to it with little repining, and that only by fitful glimpses of past prosperity. But, in whatever form, or from whatever cause pauperism may |