Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1859-02-17

Importance, are, at least, annoying to the
Board, and that is. the numerous CON-
plants that are laid before them of the
bad treatment Of the paupers. Upon such
being made. the Board
must institute an inquiry. and if the state
meuts are found true, they are obliged to
hunt them another place.
If, now, we bad good, and well con-
Quoted Poor Farm. all these difficulties
would be obviated. and fully one half the
expense of the present system would be
saved to the County. Of course the pub
lie will say, demonstrate this to us, and
then we will go in for a change. l will
try. ss -.;r,,,
In the first place, if we had Poor Farm
the number of paupers would be less, this
is evident for two reasons: A fewer mum.
Der. BY far, would apply for relief if they
knew they would be Immediately transfer.
red to farm. and there compelled 20 labor
to the extent Of their ability Tksy would
prefer to labor ssad support themselves.
rather than labor and be supported. Again.
tue nnatu-ai pride of their relations would
aaeep many from becoming County
charge: they would be unwilling to en-
dure the stigma of the Poor House, but
they are very well satisfied to keep them
in their families to the tune of three dol
lars per week. i know of some paupers
in this County, who have friends abundant
ly able to support them, and who would
not now be County charge if we had a
Poor House. r-u
Again: it is very evident that when all
the arrangements are made as at Poor
House the actual cost of keeping the paul
pers must be materially diminished; there
they can be supplied with plain. substan-
tial food, and receive that attention that
will be most conducive to health. and ulti-
matsly result in their ceasing to be coun-
ty charge.
TIE labor, of course, that can be got
from them, for there are always some that
can do no irconsiderable amount of work,
will detract materially from the actual cost
of their keeping.
The statistics of several counties in
which there are well conducted Poor Hous
es, for I have taken some pains to inform
myself, show a very satisfactory result.
In counties with double the population of
ours, the expense of keeping the poor was
only about halt as much per year. In one
county in Ohio. after footing up all ac-
counts and deducting it from the amount
OF the proceeds of the farm. there was left
a margin of $40 in favor of the county,
and this in county, too, that had more
paupers than ours. These are facts wor-
thy Of attention. for they show, III way
that cannot err, the superior advantages Of
the system I advocate. si
/ will doubtless be met with the argu-
ment that we have tried keeping up Poor
Farm in this county. and i, was found 10
be more expensive than the present sys-
tenn. That may all be very true. but you
must remember tina. the circumstan noes are
different now,-the number of paupers
have increased four fold. and what may
have been true of limited number, may
not be true when that number is largely
increased. But the truth is. it is not so
that the expense of taking care of the poor
was heavier with the farm than without.
The common judgment of all who have
given any attention to the matter is. that
the disposition made of the farm has been
attended with great loss to the county
Marshall County is now paying, for the
support of her paupers. more than fifteen
hundred dollars a year. and this sum is
constantly increasing. This is a heavy
burden on the people, and if there is any
way possible to reduce it, an earnest effort
ought to be made in the matter. If the
purchase of Poor Farm, worth from foul
to Eve thousand dollars. would relieve u.
Of some of this burden, let there be earn.
est action in the matter. and let the initia'
tory steps to this end be st once taken
For my part should like to see vote or
this question at some general election
NO speaks next?
~ A. O. PACKARD,
Clerk Center Township.