The question arises whether from this maze of special resources for relief and cross currents of desire to aid, from the apparently hopeless tangle of real needs and of fraudu lent claims on the one hand, and on the other of arbitrary whims, carelessly accepted traditions, and deliberate adop tion of one or another set of tests, there can be detached any clear principle of general application.
There is no doubt that there are grave disadvantages in the existing state of confusion. The poor who are in need of relief, or who think that they are, should not be set the problem of analyzing the psychological eccentricities of possible donors. They should not be subjected to the hardship of finding themselves in an excluded class for reasons which have nothing to do with generally accepted standards of conduct ; and it may be almost equally danger ous for the applicant for assistance suddenly to find him self richly rewarded for the unsuspected possession of some qualification which has no importance for himself, but which, for personal reasons, commends him to the one whose aid he has sought. If to any extent this state of affairs can be remedied, the result will be conducive to morality and a more equitable distribution of charitable gifts. The existence in a community of a general bureau of information to direct applicants to this or that agency mitigates, but does not radically cure, the evil. Such a bureau may save time to both donors and applicants, but it does not really coordinate the various parts of what should be a charitable system, or justify the actions of the well-to-do in the eyes of the unfortunate. To ac complish these desirable results, it is essential that some definite understanding should be reached ; and if it is impracticable to propose one that would be entirely ac ceptable to all concerned, it may at least be possible to establish certain elementary principles and to eliminate some of the causes of confusion. Even if the one who is in need of assistance knows or can readily learn under what conditions it may be obtained, and if an agreement can be reached among the multitudinous agencies and the large number of individuals who respond to appeals for assist ance, it may still be that many would be discontented with the result, but it would then be possible to test the results of the policies agreed upon, and applicants for relief would at least know upon what to rely.
It may be objected that this in itself is precisely the principal evil to be avoided; that relief funds are danger ous to the exact extent to which people are taught to rely upon them. This objection disappears if it is found pos sible to restrict relief to those who ought to rely upon it. If fraud and misrepresentation can be eliminated, it ought to be practicable to exclude those who should not receive assistance. Provision would be made for those in whose income there is necessarily a permanent deficiency, and for those who, by assistance for a limited period, can be brought from dependence to normal self-support. Inas
much as the existence of relief funds cannot well be en tirely concealed, or the existence of charitable individuals truthfully denied, there would seem to be little advantage in continuing a sense of uncertainty for the doubtful result of preventing possible dependents from taking such a course as will lead to dependence upon them. Uncer tainty cultivates the speculative and gambling spirit, and nothing more surely leads to dependence than the intro duction of the gambling element into the plans of one who is already near the margin of dependence. To know that, if certain reasonable conditions are complied with, relief will be, provided in case some misfortune should render it necessary, may well be of incalculable assist ance in exorcising this very speculative spirit. The re lief policy should not be of a kind that will cause the general course of life to be shaped with reference to it ; but if it is of such a kind as to cause a feeling of secur ity that disasters of an unpreventable kind will call forth sympathy and practical assistance, a stimulus will result to rational living.
The principle for which we are seeking is to be found in the formulation and general acceptance of the idea of a normal standard of living, and the rigid adoption of either disciplinary or charitable measures, as may be found appropriate and necessary for those families and individuals whose income and expenditure do not conform to such standard. An approach to the adoption of such a principle has already been made from various directions. The general acceptance of the obligation in the last ex tremity to support life, to make provision for orphan children, to care for the sick and disabled, and to provide burial, is, in effect, the primitive form in which the prin ciple of the standard of living is accepted. The sanitary code, nominally in the interest of the community, but really, if the motives supporting it are fully analyzed, quite as much from an altruistic concern for those to whom it is applied, imposes conditions much beyond this elementary requirement. In the larger cities, where the prevailing standard would otherwise be lowest, it is often in fact kept very high by positive enactment. Overcrowd ing in living and sleeping rooms is prevented, a normal supply of light and air is secured, suitable precautions against fire and other dangers to life and property are prescribed ; a definite standard of cleanliness and decency is deliberately established ; measures are taken to prevent moral contamination of those who would be most exposed to it, and who, if left to themselves, would be helpless against it. To these might be added the voluntarily ac cepted obligation to give a good elementary education to all children, and the policy not infrequently extended to adults through a system of night schools and popular lec tures, and carried into the realm of higher education through state universities, grants to higher and technical educations from the public treasury, and in other ways.