Opposition to outdoor relief in Boston has by no means disappeared. In one district the Associated Charities regularly relieve the overseers of the care of all families residing within the district who apply to the society for aid. This plan works admirably. The secretary of the board of overseers says that complaints are rare, and when they are made are found on investigation to be without foundation. Miss Zilpha D. Smith, who was for many years general secretary of the Associated Charities, and others who have watched closely the operations of the system, are uncompromising opponents. It has even been suggested that the improved administration may have been a misfortune, since it has not removed the fundamental evil, while it has removed some of the arguments which were found to be effective in other cities. This, however, is obviously a partisan view as it can hardly have been a mistake to improve the constitution of the board. There is constantly in progress an education of individual over seers in the principles that should govern the relief of destitution and this in itself is a valuable result.
The overseers of the poor do not have charge of the almshouse or other charitable institutions, but only of the care of the poor in their own homes. This introduces peculiar difficulties, since, if outdoor relief is refused, there is no certainty of admission to the almshouse, the latter being dependent upon the discretion of a separate board. The overseers, however, may impose any conditions on the receipt of outdoor relief, and excellent use has been made of a wood yard, which is maintained by the overseers for the double purpose of employing able-bodied men whose families are in receipt of outdoor relief and providing an opportunity for homeless men to earn shelter and meals in the adjoining wayfarers' lodge.
The position of those who desire to abolish outdoor relief is briefly as follows : No manipulation of relief funds, however ingenious and complete, can do much except incidentally to improve the condition of the poor. Incidentally, by being ever at hand to prevent men from experiencing the results of their own actions and interfering between cause and effect, both private and public relief exert an enormous influence on the character of the poor — often an evil influence. The system of relief, however, may be made educational, in culcating thrift, prudence, and self-restraint, reenforcing the natural instincts of self-preservation. It is very much more difficult to make public relief serve this purpose than private relief. Discrimination is difficult on the part of public authorities, and there is an almost irresistible ten dency to increase the amount disbursed, and an even more pronounced tendency to increase the number of recipients. The abolition of outdoor relief does not increase destitution, since a large proportion of those who are at present receiving aid will be found not to require help, but will develop resources of their own. Those who remain may be adequately dealt with by the organized and individual benevolence of the city. If relief from the taxes should be confined to that given in institutions, every one, good or bad, would know that when he reached the end of his means he could find shelter, food, and clothing, all the necessaries of life, in the almshouse ; and since he would be sure of finding them there only, where at best life is unattractive, he would be stimulated to supply these necessaries for himself when possible. Relatives also would be led to do more for those unable to support themselves. Private societies and individuals could then confine their relief to the exceptional families where past thrift or the expectation of self-support in the near future makes interference by private philanthropy desirable.
The chief argument against outdoor relief, however, is that from experience. The five leading cities of the sea board, New York, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, counting Brooklyn as a separate city, have found it possible to care for their poor without outdoor relief, and, it would appear, without serious disadvan tages. In Western cities, while there have been fewer successful attempts to abolish entirely such relief, stricter administration, and a decrease in the total amount dis bursed, have been found to be advantageous.' In the cities which have tried both plans the number of persons in the almshouses is diminished when there is no outdoor relief, and there is no noticeable increase in the amount of alms given by private individuals or relief agencies.
In common with the other colonies, Massachusetts in herited from England the general system of poor relief which prevailed in that country in the last century. The present Massachusetts poor law recognizes, as does the The experience of Indianapolis in this direction is especially in structive.
English law, " a right to relief." The language is as follows : " Every city and town shall relieve and support all poor and indigent persons lawfully settled therein whenever they stand in need thereof. The overseers of the poor shall have the care and oversight of all such poor and indigent persons so long as they remain at the charge of their respective cities and towns, and shall see that they are suitably relieved, supported, and employed, either in the workhouse or almshouse, or in such other manner as the city or town directs, or otherwise at the discretion of said overseers." The words in which Thomas Mackay sums up the ob jections to public outdoor relief are more severe than should be applied in some American communities, although they are amply illustrated in others : — " From a variety of causes—the general sentimentality of the times, the ignorance of local administrators, the pressure of a population which does not contribute to, but hopes to share in, the general largesse, the corruption of politicians who regard the poor rate as a mere election eering fund—the poor law, as administered throughout the greater part of the country, is simply a disaster to the best interests of the poorer classes, and succeeds in main taining a head of pauperism which, though it continues to decrease, is still a disgrace to the intelligence of the country. The system multiplies the number and per petuates the poverty of the poor." The objections which to the writer appear conclusive against the distribution of outdoor relief from the public treasury may be summarized as follows : I. Under modern conditions private philanthropy is a safer, more stable, and more generous source of supply than taxation. Experience does not seem to confirm the fear that private relief is untrustworthy in times of special distress. It is when there is well-founded conviction of exceptional distress that the purse-strings of the charitable are most freely loosened, and to assume that it will be otherwise is to doubt the most fundamental and the most general of all human instincts. It is not the ordinary taxpayer alone, but the millionnaire also, who holds the key to the immediately available surplus from which our universities, our art galleries, our libraries, and our relief funds of various kinds are to be enriched. There are un doubtedly sources of taxation which may be drawn upon more fully for the public good, and to these public hospi tals, almshouses, and other institutions should look for their share — proportionate to their needs.