who is to right old wrongs in Denmark, draws near the dead and heart-broken Hamlet. But it was not lost in the dramatist's conception. To hate the sin yet love the sinner was his achievement: how difficult a one we know not merely from the modern novel and drama, but from our own lives as well! Only supreme love could have seen men and women as Shakespeare saw them: as only supreme genius could so have painted them! He has no types, no caricatures: even his fools are human beings, at once pitiable and variable and glad! Consider the comic pathos of Malvolio! Consider the humanness of his so different kings on their march toward death! And then, the vivid vitality of his women, tragic or merry or mighty or frail-the women who have filled volumes of criticism, for Shakespeare was the greatest feminist of them all. What wizard was this Master William of Stratford to pierce the heart of a Portia and a Juliet, a Cleopatra and a Miranda? How should he sound the depths and heights, registering every half-tone of the feminine music? For a lesser man it would have been so easy to portray Isabel as a mere symbol or type of chastity! But Shakespeare shows her, when her hour strikes, rich in that other great virtue which is not always the companion of chastity: forgiving Angelo, and begging his life from the avenging duke. A charming interpreter of Shakespeare2 has recently commented upon the astonishing freshness and modernity of Shakepeare's women-the fact that they are so much nearer to us than the women of early nineteenth century literature. But are not his men, in perhaps a lesser sense, also our contemporaries? What more modern than the blasé and cynical Jaques? What more modern than the problems of Hamlet, eternal tragedy of the subjective soul brought face to face with objective wrong-image, as he might be, of many a harassed ruler of the world to-day? All these complex subtleties of life were clear to Shakespeare: the provocation as well as the cruelty of Shylock, the nobility and the madness of Othello, the infinite, hopeless pity of the stricken Macbeth To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools. The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle...... 'Miss Viola Allen in the New York Times. God, God forgive us all! might almost be taken as the keynote of Shakespeare's drama: not the laxity of Beaumont and Fletcher's easy tolerance; not the modern spirit, curious and indefinite, which withholds judgment because it is frankly uncertain by what canons to judge, but a very different thing. George Meredith's summing up of Shakespeare was eternally right: Thy greatest knew thee, Mother Earth; unsour'd He knew thy sons. He prob'd from hell to hell His wisdom was not, for he knew thee well. Love does not tolerate; love is not blind; love understands. Genius alone can achieve much in this world; it may even attain to a centenary of greatness. But when men are coerced into a tercentenary celebration, we may be sure that genius has not stood alone, but has mated him with love. Only from such parenthood are the sons of the morning, the supreme artists born: genius, which Hugo's fine words have described as "a promontory jutting out into the infinite;" and love, which so far as human speech may define her at all, is just a spark thrown out from the living forge of God! THE CHARITIES INVESTIGATION. BY JOSEPH V. MCKEE, M.A. ITHIN the past month serious charges have been brought against the private charitable institutions of New York City. The Strong Commission, appointed for the purpose of investigating the work done by these institutions, has heard evidence which tended to show that conditions in the various homes and asylums caring for dependent children are discreditable and reprehensible. It has been declared that gross carelessness and culpable mismanagement mark the administration of these places. The asseverations of witnesses before Commissioner Strong have been of the gravest character, and because of their sensational nature have received wide publication by the metropolitan press. These charges have been made against institutions which, up to this time, enjoyed fair names and favorable reputations. In particular they have been brought against establishments under Roman Catholic auspices. The investigation that has brought out these indictments has been conducted in such a way as to arouse bitter feeling and recrimination. Eminently unfair and seemingly prejudiced, the persons furthering the work of the investigating committee have brought upon themselves a well-deserved suspicion that their present activities arise from unworthy motives. But to the citizen interested in the proper expenditure of his city's funds and to the Catholic jealous of the good name of the men and women who have consecrated their lives to the care of the poor, the point at issue is not the motives actuating those responsible for the charges that are made. It would be interesting and enlightening to know those motives. But it would be most futile to impugn their motives and not be able to refute their statements. The real issue is: Are the charges brought against the Catholic institutions true? Is it true, as affirmed, that the characteristics of our Catholic orphanages are uncleanliness, carelessness and other marks of gross mismanagement? Can we assert with truth that the conditions described by the Kingsbury investigators as prevailing in Catholic establishments do not exist in fact? These are the points at issue. Personal recrimination cannot prove that the testimony given by the investigators is false, unwarranted and unjust. This can be done only by presenting facts. What are they? It is necessary, before considering the specific charges brought against our institutions, to outline briefly the history of the present investigation. When Mayor Mitchel entered office he appointed John A. Kingsbury, Commissioner of Charities. Mr. Kingsbury had had wide experience in professional charitable work, and had acted for some time as Secretary to the State Charities Aid Association. This is a private organization which has a membership roll of over fourteen hundred. It has no official power, but performs work of general charity. In addition it takes upon itself the task of seeing that private charitable organizations of quasi-public character comply with the various State and municipal laws. In the execution of its purpose it expends over one hundred thousand dollars annually. The leader of the association which wields tremendous influence is Homer Folks. All charitable institutions in New York State which receive public moneys are under the supervision of the State Board of Charities. This commission inspects and supervises the various institutions, and determines the standard of efficiency thought necessary for the proper care of dependent children. If this standard is met by an institution, the State Board issues a certificate stating that conditions there are satisfactory, and that the State or city may commit children to that place. Up to the present time the local Department of Charities acted upon these certificates. When the city commits a child to one of these approved institutions, it pays the proper authorities two dollars and fifty cents a week for the child's maintenance, and seven cents a day for its education, with an additional seven cents allowance if the child also receives vocational training. Not long after Mr. Kingsbury had begun active work as Commissioner of Charities, there developed a well-defined struggle between the New York City Department of Charities and the State Board. The object of the struggle was, on the part of the State Board, to retain its power of control and supervision over the private charitable institutions and, on the part of Mr. Kingsbury, to wrest this control from the State Board. The members of the State Board held that this authority was theirs by the right vested in them by the Constitution. Mr. Kingsbury claimed that as it was the city's money that was spent and not the State's, this control should rest with the municipal authorities. The present Strong investigation is a direct outcome of this struggle, and a means used by Mr. Kingsbury to attain his purpose. Since 1914 the fight has taken on a serious aspect. It was at this time that Mr. Kingsbury declared, in a report to the Mayor of New York, that the State Board showed laxity in the performance of its duty. He stated that it inspected private institutions "with both eyes closed or with one suspicious and one drooping eye." He affirmed that conditions were such as "to warrant a special inquiry into this branch of the State government by the Governor or the Legislature." This report was submitted to Mr. George McAneny, then Acting Mayor, who forwarded it to Governor Whitman. While the Governor was considering Mr. Kingsbury's petition for an investigation of the State Board, Mr. Folks, head of the State Charities Aid Association, threw the weight of his influence on the side of the City Commissioner of Charities, and urged Governor Whitman to appoint a commissioner to hear charges against the State Board. This Mr. Whitman did. This Mr. Whitman did. He appointed Charles A. Strong to sit as commissioner to hear evidence in support of the charges made by Mr. Kingsbury. In order to substantiate the charges which he made in his report, Mr. Kingsbury began a secret investigation of all private institutions receiving moneys from New York City. To conduct this investigation, he appointed a committee consisting of Second Deputy Commissioner of Charities, William J. Doherty, Dr. Ludewig B. Bernstein and Mr. R. R. Reeder. The work of this committee was not to study conditions prevailing in the various institutions, with the idea of remedying the defects that might be found. It was not its purpose to offer any suggestions to the institutions for their betterment, nor even to consider the question of improvement at all. Its work was solely to gather evidence to show that the conditions were not as they should be, because of the laxity of the State Board of Charities in its supervision and control of these places. Mr. Kingsbury had charged that the State Board inspected institutions "with both eyes closed or with one suspicious and one drooping eye." He had to have supporting evidence, and he commissioned Mr. Doherty and his associates to get it. This is the history of the investigation. The whole controversy has been a struggle between the State Board of Charities and Mr. Kingsbury for control of the charities situation in New Yor |