II. A salient fact is, secondly, that private charity is not very likely to undertake to do what the public does, even if imperfectly. As a means then, of encouraging and leaving the field clear for private initiative, as a means of preventing any confusion of thought on the part of the public as to what is and what is not done by the state or its subdivisions, as a means of marking off clearly the functions of private relief and public relief—those who do not believe in public outdoor relief would draw a sharp line between the two. We would ask the state to care, in appropriate institutions, for those who are recognized as needing institutional care — those who can be dealt with in large classes — especially the defective and the insane, the sick, and again especially those who have contagious diseases, or diseases dangerous to the community.
III. Miss M. E. Richmond has suggested that the state should care for those for whom control as well as support is required ; and this again would lead us to leave outdoor relief to private initiative. Of course it would not follow that the entire burden of support and training for these designated classes should necessarily be taken over by the public authorities. Private philanthropy might do a part of this also, and should have the right to do what it will and can. It would be necessary for the state to act in so far as private funds are not supplied. There would then be left, however, exclusively for private individuals and voluntary associations all material assistance required in the homes of the poor.
IV. This is appropriate, for it is a more delicate ministry, one requiring greater personal interest, and a more patient study of the varying elements of each particular problem. If the family life is to be maintained, and if the income is not sufficient to do it, the deficit should not be made up mechanically— as to some extent it must be, if public officials are to do it —but with infinite pains, with personal sympathy, with temperate consideration of the earning capacity of members of the family, such as a private donor or the visitor of a private society is more likely to show. It is clear that there must be a division of work somewhere, if we are to get the full cooperation of both. However much more than this private philanthropy may do, we shall do well to leave strictly to private charity the giving of all the assistance required to supplement wages, to aid families temporarily disabled by the death or ill ness of the breadwinner, to supplement the earnings of a mother who is a widow and responsible for the rearing of children, and other similar forms of relief, simply for the reason that private charity has naturally, or certainly may have, more elasticity, more freedom from arbitrary restric tions, and a higher standard of trained professional ser vice.
V. A public fund is subjected to more demands which should be resisted, but which it is difficult even for the most upright and conscientious officials to resist. They come from politicians, but not from them alone. Missionaries, church visitors, clergymen, school-teachers, and even agents of charitable societies have been known to fall into the habits of sending lists of families, and it is a rare overseer or official that will not think it advisable to make some show of doing something when such in dorsements arrive. Such requests are often entirely reasonable, and they are not infrequently addressed, as it is right they should be, to private agencies as well. In the degree, however, to which the fund becomes imper sonal, and its expenditure dissociated from its source, these demands are likely to become the principal factor in the decisions as to what shall be done — rather than the real needs and the best interests of the family concerned. This impersonal character and this distance between the donor and the one who comes into contact with the family is most complete in the case of public outdoor relief ; and the difficulty of its judicious administration, therefore, other things being equal, is greatest.
VI. Even if, finally, there were no inherent fatal objec tions to the system of public outdoor relief, as we have tried to show that there is, we should still counsel against any agitation for its introduction in New York, Philadel phia, Baltimore, or Washington, because the amount of money which the city seems willing to expend for the care of its dependents in the support of the institutions for which the city is now responsible is inadequate. There has not been a year in the last twenty years when the appropriations in New York City for food, fuel, clothing, and other supplies in the almshouse and hospitals were as large as they should be. The same thing, in perhaps a less degree, is true of other cities. Certainly it would be folly to introduce a demand for an appropriation for out door relief, which would probably work injury, when the funds set aside for indoor relief are not sufficient for the actual needs of the aged, the defective, and the sick.