the effect upon these relations of the recent establishment of a Board of Charities, of your duty in respect to the management of the institutions and the extent of your supervisory authority over them, appears to me to present elements of a hypothetical nature, because the definite problems which are, perhaps, to be anticipated may not, however, arise, and elements within the field of your own executive discretion regarding your duty, which it is not appropriate for me to limit and define. (21 Opin., 73; 22 id., 98.) Nevertheless, as various practical details of administration of these institutions are constantly coming before you for action, I think the situation may be viewed as presenting questions actually arising in the administration of your Department, and that these questions are susceptible of a legal aspect and expression. If they were judicial questions--questions for the courts rather than for executive decision-another reason would be manifest why they should not be answered (20 Opin., 702; 21 id., 370; 22 id., 181); but this does not appear to me to be the case. I may therefore frame the questions which are included in your query as follows:

1. Are the four institutions named covered by the provisions of the act establishing a Board of Charities in the District of Columbia?

2. If so, how far has the relationship of the Secretary of the Interior to these institutions been modified?

If the Board of Charities act shall be found upon examination not to apply to one or more of these institutions, it appears to me that the prior state of the law and the opinions rendered under it and the long-continued practice of the Interior Department upon the subject have authoritatively determined your duties in respect to management. and the extent of your authority to supervise and control in such case, so far as any definite point of doubt heretofore arising has made it necessary for you to seek advice; and, except in reference to the Board of Charities act, you appear to suggest no new points of doubt and no other actual and practical question now before you for determination. While, on the other hand, if the conclusion shall be that some or all of these four institutions are included in the

provisions of the Board of Charities act, then the inquiry needs only to point out to what extent and in what respect your previous relationship to the institutions has been affected, without defining comprehensively your functions and duties with respect to them.

It must be admitted, I think, that the questions which 1 have undertaken to frame, as apparent on the face of your letter, although not expressed therein, are not strictly or wholly questions of law. The question, for instance, whether each or any one of the institutions named is a charitable institution is a question perhaps of mixed fact and law. But both the questions framed have a distinct legal import and form and are important to be answered, and I therefore waive the technical points in this case and dismiss any hesitation which I may have felt on that ground.

The act to establish a Board of Charities for the District of Columbia, approved June 6, 1900 (31 Stat., 664), provides that the said Board of Charities

"Shall visit, inspect, and maintain a general supervision over all institutions, societies, or associations of a charitable eleemosynary, correctional, or reformatory character which are supported in whole or in part by appropriations of Congress, made for the care or treatment of residents of the District of Columbia; and no payment shall be made to any such charitable, eleemosynary, correctional, or reformatory institution for any resident of the District of Columbia who is not received and maintained therein pursuant to the rules established by such Board of Charities, except in the case of persons committed by the courts, or abandoned infants needing immediate care. * The officers in charge of all institutions subject to the supervision of the Board of Charities shall furnish said board, on request, such information and statistics as may be desired; and to secure accuracy, uniformity, and completeness of such statistics the board may prescribe such forms of report and registration as may be deemed to be essential. * * *The Commissioners of the District of Columbia may at any time order an investigation by the board, or a committee of its members, of the management of any penal, charitable, or reformatory insti- · 19395-VOL 23-02-19

* * *

tution in the District of Columbia; and said board, or any authorized committee of its members, when making such investigation, shall have power to send for persons and papers and to administer oaths and affirmations; and the report of such investigation, with the testimony, shall be made to the Commissioners. The said board shall make an annual report to Congress, through the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, giving a full and complete account of all matters placed under the supervision of the board, all expenses in detail, and all officers and agents employed, with a report of the Secretary, showing the actual condition of all institutions and agencies under the super vision of the board, the character and economy of administration thereof, and the amount and sources of their public and private income. The said report shall also include recommendations for the economical and efficient administration of the charities and reformatories of the District of Columbia. The said board shall prepare and include with its annual report such estimates of future appropriations as will, in the judgment of a majority of its members, best promote the effective, harmonious, and economical management of the affairs under its supervision; and such estimates submitted shall be included in the regular annual book of estimates. All acts and parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed."

*

The first point to be investigated is whether the four institutions named in your letter are subject to the supervision of the Board of Charities. The general supervision which they are to maintain embraces all charitable, eleemosynary, correctional, or reformatory institutions.

It needs no argument to show that no one of these four institutions is of a correctional, reformatory, or penal character. Are they charitable or eleemosynary institutions? The definitions of these terms in the modern dictionaries (the Century and the Standard) bring out the beneficent purpose and the voluntary bounty bestowed. In the special signification which is before us, the Century defines charitable as, "pertaining to almsgiving, or relief of the poor; springing from charity, or intended for charity; as, a charitable enterprise; a charitable institution;" and to the

same effect is the Standard. And the Standard defines eleemosynary thus:

*

"Existing for the relief of the poor; charitable;

gratuitous; as, eleemosynary institutions."

And the Century:

"1. Derived from or provided by charity; charitable; as, an eleemosynary fund; an eleemosynary hospital.

"2. Relating to charitable donations; intended for the distribution of alms, or for the use and management of donations and bequests, whether for the subsistence of the poor or for the conferring of any gratuitous benefit.”

And an eleemosynary corporation is "a private charity constituted for the perpetual distribution of the alms and bounty of the founder." (Kent, quoted in the Century Dictionary, sub nomine "Corporation.”)

So that, connected etymologically with words that denote pity and good will, and meaning originally in reference to individual or corporate donors the distribution of alms, the words as applied to modern institutions have come to signify such as aid the poor, confer benefits, and provide, from benevolent motives, care, remedial treatment, or other alleviation for those who are in need of these offices, as a matter of gratuitous bounty altogether in some cases, and of bounty in part, even where beneficiaries are not indigent. Indeed, in respect to the feature that only the corporation or institution with its complete equipment could realize the alleviatory scheme in its full extent, the benefit is a matter of bounty, in a measure, in all such cases.

Not to dwell further upon the tests in the matter, it seems to me clear that the Government Hospital for the Insane, the Freedmen's Hospital and Asylum, and the Washington Hospital for Foundlings are charitable or eleemosynary institutions, by reason of the nature of the benefits which they confer and of the gratuitous character of those benefits, which, as shown by their titles and the laws cited in your letter, are extended to the utterly helpless, to the indigent, and to others who are properly the subject of the nation's bounty.

See, in relation to the Government Hospital for the Insane, among other provisions, the act of March 8, 1858 (10

Stat., 682), establishing the institution, its object being the most humane care and enlightened curative treatment of the insane of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the District of Columbia; see also Title LIX, chapter 4. Revised Statutes; act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 485).

See, in reference to the Freedmen's Hospital and Asylum, the act of March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 507), establishing a bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees; the act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat., 485, 486), making appropriation for schools and asylums of the Freedmen's Bureau, from which legislation the Freedmen's Hospital and Asylum appears to have sprung; and the act of March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 495, 506), making a distinct appropriation for the support of the present institution.

The act incorporating the Washington Hospital for Foundlings (April 22, 1870, 16 Stat., 92), shows its charitable character in section 5, which states the object to be the founding of a hospital for the reception and support of destitute and friendless children.

In reference to the Columbia Institution for the Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb, it appears from an examination of the laws respecting it, and of its annual reports, that its work is educational rather than gratuitously charitable; that the education imparted embraces the whole field of scholastic training, beginning with children in elementary and secondary instruction, embracing teaching in industries and instruction in speech and speech-reading to overcome the special defects of the pupils, and going forward through graded courses up to college preparation, and then carrying them through the higher branches in the Gallaudet College until the right of graduation as bachelor of arts or of science has been regularly earned.

Although perhaps no accurate conclusion can be drawn from the classification of the laws in appropriation acts or elsewhere, because it seems that institutions are placed under the heading of charities or under other headings without much regard to exact distinctions, it appears that this institution has not usually been classed with the charitable or eleemosynary institutions of the District, and that appropriations for its support have not (often or always) been