stantially by Colorado and New Hampshire. Serious efforts have been made to adopt it in some other states, but without success, as interested parties worked against it.
The first great advantage of the Michigan system is the fact that one authority, and that the highest, the state itself, has taken the responsibility and charge of all dependent children. The state is more interested than any individual or society can be in all its minors and, having the power and authority, can best become the guidance of its dependents.
After twenty-two years' successful experience in child saving the Michigan object lesson teaches that any state may adopt the system, sometimes modified to conform to local conditions. And these points may well be favorably considered in its adoption:
1. That a non-political board of three or five persons should be made the guardian of the persons of all dependent children of the state, not including those in private institutions.
2. This board should have authority to place these children by indenture or adoption in families, and to accomplish this there should be a temporary educational home in which to fit children for homes, but no large institution should be established. The main work should be done outside.
3. No child should be placed in a private or public institution, except by order of the court after regular hearing of the case.
4. There should be official inspection of all public and private institutions for children with annual reports to the governor. All private or sectarian asylums for children should be incorporated and should make yearly reports to the governor and required to place children in family homes approved by a state board.
5. There should be full encouragement to private or sectarian charities, but their rights and duties should be clearly defined by law and always in the interest of the children. Public aid to them should never be extended. Public support should always be entirely public, and private charity should always be private charity alone.
