If we conclude that further provision on the part of the State is both necessary and desirable, the question then arises, is the shop-school, as outlined by Dr. Lewis, the best method for making such provision, or would industrial homes and schools such as are found in Oakland, Cal., and Hartford, Conn.; or an industrial home and workshop combined after the plan of the Pennsylvania Working Home for the Blind in Philadelphia; or would the furnishing of work to the blind at their homes as in the state of Massachusetts; or a combination of all these plans be most suited to the needs of this class of blind persons? Will the blind take advantage of the opportunities which these shop-schools will afford? To what degree will the proposed shops be self-supporting? Would the establishment of these shop-schools be sufficient provision for this class of blind persons? If such schools were established, will the State have done its whole duty to the blind? Are we to regard all blind persons over 60 years of age as beyond the pale of charitable endeavor? What is to be done for the 260 blind persons under 21 years of age not found in the special schools for the blind in this State?

The second proposal contained in Dr. Lewis' paper, viz., for a State Commission to continue the work of the first commission appointed in 1903 and to supervise the work of these shop-schools is a much larger proposition involving as it does the creation of a new State department, the opening of an office, the creation of an executive staff and the incurring of whatever expense is necessary to carry on the work of this department. The fundamental question here is, whether it is necessary and desirable to establish a new and separate department of the State government for this purpose, or whether it would be possible for the present supervisory departments having to do with the charities of the State, viz., the State Board of Charities and the Fiscal Supervisor, to carry on this work in addition to their present duties? Would the probable number of such schools and the size of the undertaking justify this addition to the machinery of State government? Does the coupling of this proposition with that for the establishment of a single experimental school in the city of Buffalo present an obstacle to the trying of a very interesting and possibly valuable experiment in the training of the adult blind in this State?

These questions are raised, not as objections to the program outlined in Dr. Lewis' paper, but rather as suggestions for the further discussion of a most interesting and timely subject.

CHAIRMAN POTTER: We are now ready for a discussion of this subject. Those persons who desire to speak, will please announce their names and confine themselves to five-minute addresses.

A MEMBER: I would like to ask a question about the Pennsylvania Institution for Blind. Can Dr. Lewis tell us briefly what the character of that is?

DR. LEWIS: All I can say in regard to that institution in Philadelphia is that it was visited by one member of the Commission and examined very thoroughly. As I merely suggested in the paper which I read to-day it was the united opinion of the members of the Commission that that kind of work is not as a rule desirable. There are many reasons why this is true. In the first place, one of the features of the work is that the blind men are paid very much more than the trade prices, and the consequence is the money they receive is in the nature of a bonus. The blind men live in the institution, and a certain element of dissatisfaction is very common. I hardly like to speak critically of the institution, but the opinion of the member of the Commission who visited it was that it is not the kind of work that it would be deemed advisable to perpetuate elsewhere; that for economical and for other reasons the plans suggested by the Commission of having a shop or school in which those engaged in it lived else where than under one roof was far more desirable.

CHAIRMAN POTTER: Is anyone disposed to discuss this question? There is no doubt about the interest, I assume, of all present, though it may be we do not care to express any views.

MR. EDWARD T. DEVINE: I do not rise to discuss Dr. Lewis' paper, but to ask if a discussion of the report of the chairman would be legitimate at this time or at a later stage?

CHAIRMAN POTTER: I should suppose there would be some time and some place where it would be entirely proper. I should be delighted if such an arrangement could be made, but I, myself, would not like to undertake to extend the customs, so far as I have observed them, in these sessions at least not until the work of the morning is out of the way.

MR. DEVINE: My question was whether this is a legitimate

part of the present work.

CHAIRMAN POTTER: I am unable to answer.

Before passing

on to the next question, permit me to state that this question should come up for consideration by the assembly at the present time. The State of New York makes absolutely no provision for the dependent adult blind, except in almshouses, and cases are continually coming up, and it seems to me that some special provision should be made for such cases, and I think this topic should be discussed at this session. Through the kindness of Mr. Hebberd, Dr. Lewis consented to present a paper which is most instructive, and one that suggests many special phases of this subject. I think the Massachusetts scheme is good. Now, I think it would be good if we could provide something in the

same way.

I have very great pleasure in introducing Hon. James H. Tully, Commissioner of Public Charities of New York, who will speak upon "Improved Methods of Caring for Dependent Adults."

MR. JAMES H. TULLY, of New York: The man who commits to writing what he intends to say at a given time, and when that times arrives discovers it has already been said by others, who are able to say it somewhat better, is in a bad position and that is my position this morning. I find it necessary to disregard much which I have written, which leaves so many gaps that you will have to have a little patience with me.

It was my intention, in response to an invitation from your committee, to read a paper, giving my views about improving the methods of caring for destitute adults. I have concluded not to read the paper, because preceding speakers have traversed the greater part of the same ground.

My experience with official charity has shown me that people may be classed as the thrifty, thriftless and spendthrift. The first are frugal and saving, the second are not frugal or not saving, and the last spend their money lavishly and recklessly, and in many cases eventually become a public burden. In addition to these there are others whom misfortune besets and pursues until they also become a public burden.

Of the best methods of caring for such people the ideas of many are materially different. I recall an incident in the city where a little girl had been sent to the store by her mother and on the way had lost the silver coin with which she had been intrusted. When the child realized that she had lost the money she proceeded to cry in such a heartbreaking manner as to attract the attention of the people who happened to be passing.

One man patted her little head and inquired in a sympathizing way the cause of her trouble and, upon being told, said: "Well, never mind; here," placing his hand in his vest pocket, "here is a match, go and look for it." It was certainly a very dark night, yet the child seemed disappointed.

Individual effort in behalf of the destitute may be helpful and serviceable to a degree, but effective and satisfactory results can be accomplished only through systematic work and organizations such as you represent.

For the year 1903, the average number of destitute adults cared for in the buildings under the charge of the Department of Public Charities of the city was 6,187. This did not include the inmates of the prisons or insane asylums nor of the multitude of private institutions erected by the different religious societies or through the liberality and generosity of men and women whose lives have left a sweet fragrance that will ever cling to their memory.

To clothe, feed and care properly for such a multitude requires constant supervision. Food and supplies of all kinds receive careful scrutiny. Dietitians prescribe a healthful diet. The destitute sick have the benefit of skillfully trained nurses. Public hospitals have special schools for training the nurses. Health requirements are rigidly observed. Labor is imposed where feasible.

The Public Lodging-house of New York city has bed capacity for 299 adults of both sexes, the proportion of women being about 10 per cent. Cleanliness is preserved by medical inspection, daily baths and fumigation of clothing. Steps are now being taken to erect a building of sufficient size to meet the wants of this class of destitution.

On the County Farm in the borough of Richmond three cottages of modern design and equipment, arranged for by my predecessor, Hon. Homer Folks, are about ready for occupancy.

Two of these are intended for aged women and the other for old married couples. This is a new departure but I believe it is in the right direction.

The growth of the city is so rapid and its necessities so many that it seems to be impossible to provide for all and keep within its constitutional limitations as to taxation. The departmental appropriation for the current year is $1,977,490.16. The allowance for the year to come is $75,000 greater, notwithstanding which, I believe it will be very difficult to keep within the limit so fixed. The winter of 1903-4 will long be remembered for its length and severity and the congested conditions which then existed may not recur, but it is best to anticipate and provide accordingly.

The character of the help employed in the public institutions should be changed. Although much superior to the prison help formerly assigned to that work, yet it is unsatisfactory and undesirable. That cannot be done unless the rates of pay are made large enough to attract steady and reliable people. The prisoners of course received no pay and their successors so little that it fails to secure satisfactory people. The attention of the city authorities has been called to this and it is hoped that in the near future it will be remedied to some extent at least.

Any intelligent effort to deal with the problem of the care of the destitute must recognize the different classes of destitution and their causes. Some there are who invite destitution by their lives and resist any effort to make them independent; others are unfortunate through their environment, victims of drink, and others again have become destitute through sickness or age and through no fault of their own. These different classes should be segregated. The vicious and ill-tempered should certainly be kept apart from the refined, well-behaved, dependent one. It is with this end in view that the cottage system, alluded to before, as inaugurated on the New York Farm Colony at Staten Island, was started and will afford, I have no doubt, an excellent means of developing the idea of segregation.

There is another class of destitute that should receive special care, viz: the destitute blind. They certainly deserve more sympathy than the others because of their affliction and helplessness.