almshouse children should be the wards of the State, or provided for in suitable homes and asylums, assisted by the State, until placed out in families by indenture.

Too much attention cannot be paid to our children; the future welfare of the State and country depends on them. As they are trained, so they will live; they are susceptible to surrounding influences take care that these influences are good, and we shall reap the reward in possessing a nation of intelligent, self-reliant men and virtuous women. They must be trained to habits of industry, to rely on their own exertions for success in life.

The breaking up of an indolent family and properly providing for the helpless children, is a duty which cities and States owe to their country at large. The almshouse is no proper place for the young; every one knows, or ought to know, that children are imitative, and the pauper inmate of an almshouse is the very worst exemplar a child can have. They are quick to perceive that all their wants will be supplied without any effort on their part, and growing up within the pale of the house, they regard it as their home and a refuge to return to at any time.

The mere fact of our placing a child in a family must not be accepted as a guarantee that the child will grow up a worthy man or woman; our duty, instead of ending when we deposit the child at the threshold of its new home, has, in truth, only begun. We should exercise a keen supervision over its future, and take care that its moral as well as its physical health is assured. There are times when the home does not suit the child, and vice versa. In this case a removal of the charge would be an absolute necessity, and should be an imperative duty on the part of the officials.

Of course, all this requires time, attention and labor, but the results are worth it, and the man who wearies of well doing is not in the right place, and should give way to those whose hearts are in the work. By improper administration of our poor laws, many of our almshouses have become places of refuge for men and women who could provide for themselves. Take, for instance (and there are many such), the family that is admitted on account of temporary sickness, or a want of employment. The sick man recovers, and work is plentiful- to be had for the asking. The necessity for their stay in the house no longer exists, but do they move? Not so for they are perfectly satisfied where they are. Their food is wholesome and suflicient; their clothing is suitable, and

about as good as they ever possessed. If you ask them what more they want, they will answer, "nothing," and they mean just what they say. To provide for themselves entails a certain amount of personal effort that they are not likely to exert, if they can possibly avoid it; and, as few superintendents like to adopt the harsher measures of driving them out, they remain a burden on the taxpayers, and the probability is that their children will be so, also. But if the superintendents dislike to drive them out, what is to be done? The answer is easy to give: discharge them promptly, just as soon as the necessity which admitted them has passed away.

The danger the real danger-is in permitting them to remain long enough to be institutionized. It is easy to make a chronic case of pauperism, but very hard to eradicate the evil. Some persons contend that these people can be made self-supporting in the almshouse, and there is no doubt but that an energetic superintendent can make them pay for their keeping; but if we favorably entertain this view of the case for a single instant, we are doing a vast amount of harm, not merely to the city or State, but to the pauper, also.

Our best policy-our truest economy-is to employ and pay for the necessary labor of an almshouse. Fail to do this, and the man who should be a producer is simply a consumer. By and by, the time will come when he can no longer do the little work allotted him, and the simple expense of his maintenance would be far in excess of any benefit previously derived from his labor.

The distribution of "outdoor relief" is an essential part of poor law administration; but unless the utmost caution—the wisest judgment—is exercised, it is calculated to do much mischief, and will certainly diverge into politics. Many persons if they once succeed in getting their names on the list, will practice any and every deceit to keep it there. The necessity for assistance may no longer exist, but they care naught for that, and in time they come to regard it as their right, and would be indignant at the bare suggestion of discontinuing it. There are cases within my own personal knowledge where relief has been continued to the third and fourth generation.

It would be better in my opinion that all outdoor relief be distributed by private charities, but the time does not seem ripe for that yet, and I would therefore suggest that the relief afforded should only be temporary, no specific amount should be allowed

any person or family, - for once when they realize that they can get so much per week, or month, they make their arrangements accordingly, and seldom endeavor to better their condition by personal effort.

We had at one time in our city several families, embracing a large number of persons, all related to each other, and all in receipt of outdoor relief. In order that the matter of their relationship should be concealed they resorted to the most reprehensible practices, and for a considerable time they were successful. Suspicions were at last aroused, and an investigation followed; the result was, the refusal of any more relief.

The wisdom of this procedure was fully exemplified, for the persons referred to, realizing that they would get no more assistance, went to work, and have succeeded ever since in maintaining themselves; a thing they never thought of doing before. Outdoor relief should only be extended in cases of sickness or injury. When given to others, abuse is sure to follow.

The history or circumstances of every applicant should be investigated frequently, and repeated visits should be made to their homes. The work of paying out money, groceries, coal, etc., from a poor board office, has become so systematized that the business is too often performed in a merely mechanical manner, and for that reason imposition is easy.

Commonly, when we speak of the causes of pauperism, we think of indolence, drunkenness, neglect and vice; it may, therefore, sound strange that the management of almshouses and the distribution of outdoor relief should contribute in any way to what they are popularly supposed to suppress; yet, as a matter of fact, there can be no doubt about it, and we must admit that in these things perfection has not yet been obtained. It seems to me that all we can do at present is to care for our children, prevent the inmate of an almshouse from becoming a chronic pauper, and limit our outdoor relief to such cases as have been previously mentioned.

These are all practical points, all within our province and our power, and, by strictly attending to them, I have no doubt but that we shall strike at some of the causes of pauperism, and, at the same time, prevent its increase in the future.

IV. OUTDOOR RELIEF BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES UNDER STATE SUPERVISION.

BY HENRY B. WHEELWRIGHT, NEWBURYPORT, MASS.

At the Conference of Charities for 1878, I had the honor to present a paper on Medical Charity in Massachusetts, as related to outdoor relief. In giving in that paper the aggregated experience of thirteen years of supervision of the sick poor at their homes, it was necessary, to the full comprehension of our work, to append a detailed history of the settlement laws of Massachusetts and their modes of operation. Omitting all further allusion to these preliminaries, I proceed at once to narrate briefly the subsequent experience of Massachusetts in the outdoor relief of her State poor, both sick and well. Of these poor there are now three classes:

1. The sick who are unable to be removed from their homes, including persons advanced in age and suffering from its infirmities. 2. Persons needing temporary relief to carry them over immediate exigencies.

3. Foundlings and destitute infants.

I. THE SICK.

It is expected that the sick who can be moved without present or future disadvantage, and those likely to need continuous aid, will be committed to the State almshouse, at Tewksbury, and thus be included in the indoor poor of the State, whose annual aggregate, together with the State pauper insane, will not exceed 3,600 different persons.

The first named class have been thus supported since June, 1865, and the records of fifteen years attest the beneficence and economy of the policy. This easily withstood the strain of the years of panic, the subsidence of which has left behind few traces of pauperization as its result. On the other hand, under the pressure of the system, with its searching investigations, its relentless exposures and stern denials to the unworthy, the efforts for self-support seem more earnest and more successful than ever before. The aforetime impostors, perpetually watched and driven from their last subterfuge, are ready to exclaim, with the despair

ing tramp, "I have told a lie, and I have told the truth, and neither have done me any good! I shall have to go to work!"

For the year ending June 30, 1880, the number of applications for aid from this class was about 2,300, of whom probably 300 were renewals and duplicates. These applications covered about 3,000 sick people and a relieved population of about 8,000. Though scattered all over the State, even to its remotest corners, every case was thoroughly investigated, the number of personal visits exceeding 7,000. The average period of dependence was less than four weeks, while it is twelve weeks in our State almshouse; and the average cost to the State, of each applicant, is not far from $10. Should any sum in excess of this fall upon a city or town, it is usually the result of ignorance of law or inexperience in administration. The appropriation for the period named was $23,500; it will not be exceeded, and probably will not all be needed. The comfort of the sick has been greatly promoted by the discovery and relief of their special wants, and the aid given from private and public sources have been better utilized. Upon the recovery of the patient, the family at once resumes all its normal relations, most of which have remained undisturbed during the period of aid, and to all alike comes from the authority of the State the stern decree, "We have helped you through, now if you do not work neither shall you eat." That this sentence is effectual is apparent from the constantly decreasing number of re-applicants. And, in fact, but for the needs of the new immigration, which is throwing upon us large numbers of sick and destitute persons, the aggregate of this class would be less than before the panic, notwithstanding the increase of population.*

To sum up, then :

1. This class, embracing all the pauper sick (unable to be moved) of more than one-third of our population, is cared for at an annual cost to the State of $23,000 for support, and $8,000 for supervision, or $31,000 in all, and this cost is not annually increasing. On the other hand, the State almshouse, receiving in a year some 2,500 different paupers for longer or shorter periods, of whom many are not sick, is maintained at an annual cost of over $80,000.

2. The comfort of the sufferers is greatly enhanced by a resi

Massachusetts had, in 1875, 1,651,919 people; in 1880, about 1,780,00).