Juliet signal. [volume] (Juliet [i.e. Joliet], Ill.) 1844-1???, 1863-10-13
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF WILL COUNTY.
FR1DAY, Is, 2 O'clock P. N.

Hoq. Gueu reau 20 the
OPINION.
TIE question has been presented by a
committee Of the Board Of Supervisors of
| Wall county whether the Statute of 1861
providing for the support of paupers by
the towns, applies to those Coor persons
who had been placed in the poor house be.
fore the law went into effect. Also the
question was asked, if the Stat1te is an
/ psicable to such persons, what is the condi-
ton Of those paupers who do not belong
70 any particular township if any sui
may be found.
As to the first question it seems to us
plain that the Legislature intended an en-
tire and radical change Of the paupsr sys-
! tear of the County.
Section three provides that "the over.
| seers of the poor Of the several townships
| aforesaid shall take charge of, maintain
and support the paupers of their respec-
tive township"
Who are 1.-THE paupers of their respective
townships! T. We think they are not mere
ly those who have a bodily presence with
In the limits OF the town but extend to all
such as have domicile or residence in
such town so as to throw over them the
benefit IF those laws for the relief of the
poor and INDECENT which honor the legis-
latiOn of all civilized nations. Therefore
it does not appear to us so material where
the individuals now are as where they last
acquired the right of domicile and resi-.
deuce,
1t cannot be that the paupers gained any
new residence by their stay in the poor
house to which they were sent for tempo
rary support. The question of residence
is question of intention. They were on
ly placed there for temporary support
without any design that thev should be
come permanent fixtures. Otherwise eve
ry pauper when discharged would be le-
gally resident of the town in which the
poor house was located. and such town
would SOON be come chargeable with all
the pauperism of tie county. Such ab-
surd consequences cannot be pruscmed to
have been intended by the law. We there
fore start with the position that a pauper
ofthe town is just as much a pauper of
the township after he has been sent to the
poor house as before.
If we interpret the law according to its
object, we are bound to presume the legis-
lature became convinced that the poor
house system did not work we'll and was
not satisfactory TO the people of this coun-
ty, and they intended to change it to q
system which would bring the care of
paupers more Immediately under the mo-
tice of the people where the paupers be
longed, and where their necessities we're
best understood. If this was the true OBJ
Ject 1t would be inconsistent to suppose
the legisla' ure intended that those already
in the poor house should remain there so
long as they needed relief from the public,
and that the people should be taxed to
keep up the county establishment and a
town establishment for the support of the
poor at the same time. If town is re-
quired by law 10 make provisions for the
support of its own paupers it wonld be un-
just 10 TAX II TOT the Support of part of
them IN some other place. Such we are
clear would be an unreasonable construc.
ton OF the law. 1t may well be doubted
whether the Board of Supervisors have
any power to levy tax to support the
paupers Ut their respective townships"
The law giving that power to others, took
1t away from them. In the case of Sea-
grdres Us, the City of Alton, when the city
charter authorizes the city to take charge
OF the poor, the Supreme Court says, up
on the passage of the charter the county
OF Madison ceased to be liable for the sup
port OF the pauoers in the city and the
county authorities had no longer any SUI
periHtendence or control ocer them" Bv
the same principle. upon the adoption Of
the law OF 1861, the county authorities
have no longer any superintendent or
control over the paupers of the respective
townships. We have looked in this opiu-
ion to the 9Th section of the law of the
same section IN relation to the pauper
&c Il mn
ton affords only in direct light upon the
question, but if it had been intended 10
make a distinction in that county which
was not made in tnis, it would seem that
very unusual language was used for that
purpose. 1t the language had been, "this
law shall apply to paupers now IN the
poor house" 1t might have afforded some
room for doubt whether this legislature
intended such result 10 Will County, hut
it would seem from reading that the leg
islature took it for granted that the law
extended 20 paupers in the poor house,
and took the precaution to direct how
they should he moved. As to the manner
of removal the statute IN relation to this
county is silent, except SO far ds it refers
to the revised statute which makes the
necessary provision. 1t is made by law a
public duty The officers of the towcs are
as much bound by their oath of Office to
take charge of the paupers of their towns
as to perform any other public duty. The
support of the poor is one of the most sa
cred duties of life, enforced as we'll by the
earnest injunctions of Holy Writ as BY the
legislation of all civilized nations. 1t has
been enforced by repeated Judicial decis-
ions for ages. In the cases heretofore
cited Chief Justice Treat remarks: Pau.
pers are not to be turned over to the uu.
certain charities of individuals. The law
makes them a charge upon the corpora
ton, and it is bound to provide them a
comfortable support. The Supreme Court
OF Ohio says the obligation to support the
poor sis of as much binding force as the
obligation of parent to support his Guild,
or husband his WIFE" IL is to the glo-
ry OF the American character that this
sacred public duty has generally been
performed with alacrity. We are there
fore at liberty to suppose that the legisla-
ture deemed any specific direction as to
the manner of the change of jurisdiction
as unnecessary, and therefore omitted it.
But this omission leaves no doubt as to
the duty ct the officers of the towns to
take charge of the 'paupers Of their re.
spective tOwnships," and if they should
neglect this duty they would be liable to
an action, and perhaps might be CONS
PEELED to do SO by mandamus.
As to the second question, if it should
turn out that the county has in its poor
house some individuals who cannot justly
be chargeable to any town. we think their
duty still remains rs it stood before the
passage of the law Of 1861. That Salute
only applies to the "parpers of the res
pective townships" and as to all other
cases the duty of the county is as much in
force as it ever was. They may not be
bound to keep up the poor house system,
but they are required by law to make
some provision for the comfortable main.