778 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
As was said, in many of our commonwealths the care of dependent minors has not differentiated from that of dependent adults. There is now, and has been, however, one possibility for a difference in their treatment. This is found in the law relating to the adoption and apprenticing of minors.
With the consent of the parent or legal guardian a child may, through the court, be adopted into a family and have the same legal standing as a natural child. So, too, may a minor, with the consent of the parent or guardian, be apprenticed or bound out through the court for a certain specified time, or until he reaches a certain age. In such a case the minor must work for his master, in consideration for which he receives maintenance, schooling, instruction in a trade, and other benefits, as prescribed by law. The contract is binding upon both parties and is dis- solved only by the court. In nearly all the commonwealths the poor authorities are made the guardians of dependent and neglected children, and are explicitly authorized to secure their adoption or binding out.
As a rule, the power of the poor authorities to bind out poor orphans, dependent children, children of paupers, or children found begging, without the consent of their parents or guardian, is discretionary. In a few states it is made their duty to bind them out. But the point of interest is that twenty-nine of the forty-eight commonwealths have made no further provision. These states form a wide belt, including most of the southeast- ern, southern, and western states, where the child-saving prob- lem has not become so pressing. It includes, however, a few New England and north central states. 1 If the authority to bind
'These states (including some where the power of binding dependent minors is not specifically granted) are Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, Virginia, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisi- ana.Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon.
When one examines the statistics, he is surprised to find that it is not these states which have the largest number of children in the almshouses in proportion to the total population. However, children form a larger proportion of their almshouse popula- tion than in the other states.
See Report of N. C. C. C., 1894, P- 125.
