ill to be removed to the county buildings, relief may be given to him under certain restrictions pending his removal to the poorhouse or hospital. In no other case does the law contemplate a care for the poor by the State outside of buildings provided by the county. The theory, therefore, is very clear.

Now, as to the practice in Brooklyn and New York: A system grew up in time with the growth of the cities, as it has grown up elsewhere, of giving what was known as "out-door relief." It became the custom in both places for the county to make an appropriation annually for the distribution of food or fuel, or both, among the needy poor, in their own homes. This help was not confined to the classes specified in the statute as those who might be so helped temporarily and pending their removal to the county buildings. Presumably it was given in most cases to those able ordinarily to support themselves, but, for some reason, at the time unable to do so. As long as the relief so given was limited in amount, little notice was taken of what has since proved to be, in Brooklyn at all events, an infraction of the law. No doubt it seemed to many good people at the outset a judicious practice on the part of the authorities. There are always some standing in need of help, whom no one wishes to send to the poorhouse. Why should not the State, many might say, administer to the necessities of such in their own homes? Let the experience of Brooklyn furnish the answer.

In the subjoined figures the country towns of Kings County are included as well as the city of Brooklyn; but these towns are insignificant in comparison with the city, and for the purposes of this paper the figures may be said to give the experience of Brooklyn. "Out-door relief," so called, began in Brooklyn in 185152. For the year ending July 31, 1852, the number of people helped was 6,754, at a cost of $7,139,99 With some variations, this had grown, in 1864, to 20,743 persons helped, at a cost of $25,921. In 1865 the general demoralization which set in after the war placed a corrupt man in charge of the poor-funds, and the figures bear witness to the result. From that moment bad became worse uninterruptedly. In 1865, while only 1,500 more people were helped than in 1864, it cost the county $72,708955, against $25,92147 in 1864, - an increase of $46,000 in a single year. In 1877 help was given to 46,350 persons, or nearly onetenth of the population, at a cost of $141,207. For the six years from 1872-77, an average of 35,109 were helped, at an aver

age cost of $114.943,7%. The total outlay for this period of six years by Kings County for out-door relief alone was $689,662,3. To such an item at last had grown the kindly and apparently harmless thing. The population of Kings County is estimated in round numbers to have been, in 1852, 150,000; in 1864, 320,000; in 1877, 550,000.

The system had become furthermore a sore on the body politic. The friends of politicians received help whether needy or not, and so the system was perpetuated. Families with voters were the first served. The "out-door relief” appropriations became a vast political corruption fund. Large numbers of the population were taught to rely on the county help, and sought it for no other reason than that the county gave it. One woman received help under nine different names. Many sold what they received. Men came from the country every autumn to live at the expense of the city during the winter, because the city was offering a premium to the idle to come there and live in idleness. The poor did not get the chief benefit of increased appropriations. Most of it went to underlings connected with the work of distribution. In every

way, and in every direction, the effect was hopelessly bad. i

In 1875 the Commissioners of Charities employed paid visitors to investigate the cases of applicants for relief; and it cost sixty cents to distribute every dollar's worth of food or fuel. This was so monstrous that public clamor compelled a change. In 1876 the visiting system was abandoned, and all applicants were compelled to take oath that they were paupers. As may be imagined, the result was horrible. Moreover, many who lived in New York availed themselves of such easy opportunity to be fed by Brooklyn..

Meanwhile public sentiment became more and more aroused, but found itself utterly unable to work any change, even through the polls, in the management of the Commission of Charities. Year after year the same class of men were elected Commissioners of Charities, despite the efforts of many citizens and of all the local papers. Reform seemed impossible. In 1877 a committee of volunteer visitors was organized, who agreed to investigate the cases of all applicants for relief. Their services, fortunately, were accepted by the Charity Commissioners. These visitors were not given power to control the distribution of relief, but could only report. They did not directly accomplish much. But they saw thoroughly the working of the system, and came to the conclusion that "out-door relief" could not be administered by the county so

as to be worth giving. The following year, 1878, the volunteer visitors so reported to the Charity Commissioners and to the Board of Supervisors. The visitors said, however, that as out-door relief had been given for so long, and many of the poor had been educated, in a sense, to depend upon such help, they would continue to visit for that year also, provided nothing should be distributed excepting coal. The visitors suggested that the year following even coal might properly be withheld. The Board of Supervisors, to whom they reported, agreed to this, and appropriated a certain sum for coal only. Subsequently, after the 1st of January, 1878, a new Board of Supervisors reconsidered this action of their predecessors, and decided that certain articles of food should be distributed in addition to coal. It may be mentioned, that in Kings County the supervisors make the appropriations, and define the specific objects for which they are to be used. The actual distribution of the relief funds is then made, in accordance with such appropriations, under the direction of the Commissioners of Charities. The action of the Board of Supervisors for 1878 proved to be the beginning of the end of the whole system of public out-door relief. Long attention to the subject had cohvinced some that "out-door relief," on the part of the county, was not legal under the laws of the State. At this crisis, through friends in the Board of Supervisors, the question of legality was referred to the counsel of the Board.

The opinion of counsel was delivered at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors, held Jan. 31, 1878. It was to the effect that, in the absence of special laws authorizing it, the system of out-door relief was contrary to the general poor-law of the State of New York. This opinion prevented an appropriation for out-door relief in Kings County during the last winter, 1878-79. Many anticipated great and unusual suffering among the poor by consequence. It seems almost a marvel that nothing of the sort occurred. The testimony of the private relief associations, and of many who give much time personally to visiting among the poor, is all to the same effect. The poor have suffered less this winter in Brooklyn than either last year or the winter before. Think of it, one hundred thousand dollars saved in a single twelve months to the county in the item of "out-door relief," and no one the sufferer for its being withheld! The saving in the interests of morality cannot be expressed in money.

From six thousand to eight thousand families have been in the

habit, for many years, of drawing weekly rations from the county during the winter season. This last year nothing was given; and, out of so many families presumably needy, not one case of unusual suffering, during the whole winter, was brought to the notice of the public. The fact is so suggestive as to be almost startling. No language could depict half so vividly the worthlessness of publicout-door relief" as administered in a large city.

The experience of Brooklyn seems to prove, therefore, beyond cavil,

1. That out-door relief, by the authorities in a large city, is certain to become, in time, a political thing.

2. That the aid so given goes almost entirely to those who can get along without it.

3. That private benevolence is equal to the demands of the really needy.

4. And, above all, that in New-York State, in the absence of laws specifically authorizing it in a given locality, the system is illegal.

II. In point of economical work, private societies in Brooklyn and New York have easily surpassed the public efforts at relief. But pauperism has grown, despite all the efforts to relieve the poor. Distress has been relieved in many cases; but the number of those who seek help to avert distress has been increased. Statistics are not at hand to support this opinion; but its truthfulness, as a general statement, will scarcely be questioned by those familiar with the two cities. It is easy to say, that indiscriminate giving and ill-considered methods of relief, whether public or private, are largely responsible for this result.

Among those who have made a specialty of working among the poor, three principles seem to have been reached with so much unanimity as almost to be axioms in the science of useful relief work,

1. That help should be given with an intelligent understanding of the circumstances of the person or family to be relieved.

2. That value should never be given, except in great emergencies, and then only while the emergency lasts, without securing from the recipient some labor or service in return.

3. That while distress may be temporarily' relieved by alms-giving, the condition of the poor can be improved only by helping them to help themselves.

It cannot be too distinctly remembered, that the relief of dis

tress is one thing, and the improvement of the condition of the poor another, and a far nobler. Only by improving the condition. of the poor can pauperism be checked and restricted.

Experience seems to show, beyond the need of argument, that no departure can be made from these principles, either by societies, by churches, or by individuals, without producing indirectly more harm than is compensated for by the good directly done. The real question, therefore, presented by the problem of pauperism in Brooklyn and New York, is how to bring the work done for the relief of the poor into subjection to these governing principles. The first point suggested is the need for investigation into every case before aid is given. How can help be wisely given without it? All cities swarm with a class of beggars whose proC. fession is to deceive. Whoever gives ignorantly, no matter from how kind a motive, aids and abets precisely this class. He does the greatest injustice to the worthy poor, who struggle to support themselves in the face of the discouraging evidence, so often before them, that begging gives better returns than honest work. The effect of such giving is almost surely to increase the number of those who live by deception. Investigation is not a matter of choice. It is a duty which no one can evade without responsibility, for it is this habit of giving without investigation which primarily places a premium upon imposture and mendicancy,

But individuals cannot investigate the cases of all who seek their aid; neither can they, as a rule, investigate thoroughly. What, then, is to be done? There can be little doubt, it would seem, that, when individuals cannot themselves investigate, they should withhold the help until they can secure investigation in some way. There are societies in Brooklyn and New York worthy of confidence, who will investigate for their subscribers all cases referred to them. These or other agencies might be availed of, the services of friends may be sought, but in no case should help be given without investigation. The testimony of experience on this point is unequivocal. The balance of harm so done is almost certain to outweigh the good.

But for the other and no less important point of thorough investigation. What shall be done about that? Even the most experienced visitors, and the oldest and best conducted societies, are often deceived. What is the remedy for this? There is but one effective and practical remedy that ever has been suggested, cooperation among the aid-giving agencies by the mutual interchange