One of the final paragraphs of the Boston report of 1888 should be quoted in full, as it contains a prophecy which singularly failed of fulfilment, as shown by the experience of Philadelphia in 1894 : " It may be that no great suffering will ensue under the present system in Philadelphia, but your committee fear that, if funds are short now in good times, a panic like that of 1873 would make it absolutely necessary for the public funds to be drawn upon ; it would work like a two-edged sword, reducing the means of those who usually support the private societies, and largely increasing the number of needy ones. In Boston the cases aided in the years suc ceeding 1873 were nearly double the number aided now, although, in the fifteen years, the population has increased about one-third." If the report of the Boston overseers did not fully con vince the residents of Brooklyn, Philadelphia, and other cities that they had made a mistake in abolishing outdoor relief, it seems to have had a quieting effect on any agita tion toward the same end at home, and in the period since the report was published there appears not to have devel oped any very general sentiment against outdoor relief. Several of the active workers in the Associated Charities, if not converted from their earlier faith, have at least come to acquiesce in the present system as not likely soon to be radically changed. Some have gone farther, and doubt whether Dr. F. H. may not be right in pronounc ing opposition to outdoor relief a "fad" and insisting that the whole question is one of administration. Certainly the administration of relief is excellently conducted by the board of overseers and its efficient secretary. Among the recent members of the board are the wife of a governor of the state and two presidents of district conferences of the Associated Charities.
Benjamin Pettee, who has served the board of overseers as secretary for over thirty years, is a vigorous advocate of public outdoor relief, and may be said to represent the views of the majority of the board in maintaining the gen eral position taken by the special committee in 1888. The arguments in favor of outdoor relief urged by Mr. Pettee are, first, that it avoids the necessity for breaking up fami lies and substituting institutional care of children for the more natural oversight of parents ; second, that it may be made adequate and uniform, and that its burdens are fairly distributed, while private relief is spasmodic, rests entirely upon charitably disposed persons, and may fail entirely because of shrinking income at the very time when desti tution is greatest and the need of relief most pressing.
In reply to the argument most frequently urged by op ponents of outdoor relief, that a sense of the right to relief overcomes the natural sense of disgrace in receiving help, the secretary urges that this objection applies equally to relief funds in the hands of private societies. Applicants feel that they have a right to such relief, since it was con tributed to relieve destitution and was not a gift to particu lar families. Mr. Pettee thinks that in cities which have
no public outdoor relief there is more and that 1 Similar views have been expressed by F. B. Sanborn and others.
2 The author is convinced that the contrary is the case.
there are, in fact, many families in need of relief who do not get it. It is admitted, however, that there are no statis tics and no carefully recorded observations that will enable us to decide whether or not this is correct. When asked whether, if public outdoor relief were discontinued in Bos ton, a large majority of the families who are now being aided would not be able to take care of themselves, Mr. Pettee frankly admits that many of the families could do so, but insists that it is very questionable indeed whether it is advisable that they should be compelled to do without the assistance that is now given. The diminished income would, he thinks, result in deprivation of necessary food, shelter, and clothing. Since it is largely widows with small children who would thus suffer, Mr. Pettee insists that the probability of their being able to get along with out the relief which they now obtain is not a sufficient rea son for abolishing it. A safeguard against the undue increase of public outdoor relief is found in the universal repugnance to being classed as paupers. Many persons who would strive to maintain their independence as against public aid are less unwilling to apply at the office of pri vate societies, and the road to pauperism is thus made easier by the private relief societies than by the system of outdoor relief.
Such are the arguments in favor of the present system. It is admitted that a lax and inefficient system of ad ministration may result in widespread demoralization, and that under the best conditions it is difficult to avoid political influence both in the actual distribution of relief and in the appointment of overseers and visitors. There is some difference of opinion as to the extent to which politics enters into the present distribution of relief in Boston, but a conservative judgment, based upon interviews with persons competent to testify, is that the political element is not entirely absent, and there are clear indi cations that the overseers are oftentimes not so strict in the application of their principles as is required by the welfare of the families concerned. The following table shows that there has been a considerable diminution in the amount of relief distributed relatively to the population and a still more marked decrease in the number of families aided, resulting in an increase during the decade ending 1890 of 70 per cent in the amount of money given to each family aided : Outdoor RELIEF, BOSTON The amounts given do not include what was paid other cities and towns for relief of Boston poor living therein or amounts expended for burials.