CHARITIES, Public, philanthropic asso ciations and institutions of public and private initiative, for the relief of sufferers from dis ease, poverty and misery. Following in the footsteps of civilization a development of char ity has come, often slowly and haltingly, but ever persistently, until the treatment of de pendent poor is now accepted as evidence of the civilization of a community. A glance through history discloses not merely neglect of the defective mentally and physically, by sav age and barbarous peoples, but an aggres sively cruel policy to rid the community of the burden of their care. Crippled children were left to die and helpless old persons were put out of the way.
Under the Hebrews however, charity be came recognized as a duty incumbent on per sons of wealth to provide for those in need, the motives being obedience to Divine Law and practical pity for the unfortunate. In Greece and in Rome, the Gliberip or free-born wealthy became patronizingly generous in liberal do nations to the poorer classes. With the advent of the Christian Era charity in its broadest interpretation came to mean the exercise of humanity through the spiritual development of doing good, and the Church became a powerful organization in extending charity. Churches of all denominations have always looked after their poor and helpless; the Church is really the first organized charity. But the question arose as to whether, after all, it was not the duty of the community as a whole, rather than that of the Church, to care for the poor. It is well for the Church to do all that it can, but the fundamental responsibility for the care of the poor rests upon the community. What ever the Church does lessens the burden upon.
the state, but the conviction grew that the state is responsible and should be held respon sible, and this may be said without in any de gree lessening the responsibility that any church may feel for the care of its own. Like Hebrew charity, which has always been racial, churches are powerless to supply universal co operation, because of their individual limita tions, but they can assist and do assist in a general organization of charity. The proper sense of responsibility having at length devel oped, the dawn of the 20th century found a settled conviction in all civilized communities that it is as much the duty of the state to care for its dependents as it is to conserve the educational interests of its children. This change was wrought only by self-sacrificing devotion of charitably inclined students of so ciology through centuries of unremitting labor.
So slow, indeed, was the development of the practice of charity that it is well within the last hundred years that the care of the helpless was left to individuals or was treated by so ciety at large as an unreasonable burden on the state. Even after the conviction became permanent that for its own protection, if for no higher reason, the state should assume the responsibility of caring for its helpless classes the conception of its duties were so vague and the method to be followed was so undefined, that the results were eminently unsatisfactory. Society regarded its dependents as being much on the same plane as its criminals and treated them much in the same way. Prisoners, de pendent children, sick poor persons, the insane, the epileptics and the helpless aged were hud dled together under one department of govern ment and it was not infrequently the case that little or no dis&imination was made in their care. General demoralization ensued and it be came apparent that a remedy must be found if further progress was to be made in the devel opment of the practice of charity. This remedy was found in segregation. It was clear that not only physical separation but governmental sep aration of the various classes was necessary. Custom and tradition were hard obstacles to overcome, but the adherents of segregation were not to be denied, and after a long and bitter and often disheartening struggle they won their first victory, in the segregation of criminals. A separate and independent depart ment of government was established for their care, although society retained in a large de gree its old habit of regarding its criminals and its dependents in much the same light. But an opening had been made for segregation and its adherents were quick to press their advan tage. They next demanded and obtained the segregation of the insane and followed this up by the successful demand for the segregation of epileptics, idiots, dependent children, the sick poor, homeless men and women and the help less aged. The aim was not merely to assure to each of these classes distinct physical sepa ration from others, but to give to each a gov ernment of its own so that it could receive the undivided attention and care of persons com petent to do the work entrusted to them and held directly responsible for that work. So beneficial did the experiment of segregation prove to be that the practice of charity made strides for good after it was adopted far out of all proportion to progress in previous years.