The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-05-11
NOW PAUPERIsM rs DEALT WIN rr
FRANCE

lea 10 the right method and trus limit OF the ro-
liof to be given to tho poor. How can involun-
tary and transient Indulgence be- suocorod with.
out fatally embedding the habit Of lf-support
In the beneficiary, and thus burdeningthe COM
munity with professional and hereditary pau
porism2 We have drawn attention from time
to time to the workings ofthe English Poor law.
and Of the so-callcd Elberfeld scheme. and wo
would now point out some notable features in
the French systom. which seems to offer. upon
the whole. the best solution of the problem.
The British Poor laws. and tho much vaunt-
ed Elberfcld regulations alike recognize the
principle that every self-confesscd pauper
mas right to support and every ownor
OF property is Obliged TO contribute to that
purpose. They differ mainly In the methods
OF distribution. large part Of tho English
fund being absorbed by poorhouses. where
as, in the German city only outdoor ro-
lief is sanctioned In both cases. 1t il claimed
that their fundamental principle s founded on
natural justice that the claim to help created
by restitution is one Of the strongest that can
exist. and that It's prompt recognition Is prime
duty Of society. Tho application Of this prin-
cipe. however, is now acknowledged oven by
tho British trades unions. to have sensiblv
weakened the self-reliance OF tho English and
Scottish workingmun. II has tended to substi-
tute recklessness for forethought waeto for
thrift. dependence forlndepcndence. BY thIsdls-
Indignation Of the moral FIBRE this encourage
ment to voluntary and habituul pauperisIn the
concession OF an absolute right to relief hae
wrought grave injury to the very class whose
Moderation was contemplated. 1t turns out
too. that at Elberfeld. where much was OK
pected from tho complete displacement Of the
poorhouse by outdoor assistance. the tide Of
psuperism is rapidly rising under system
hat n lotroI rfubt 20 dap,upA nj n
significant indeed. that the Social Democrats.
who form strong political party in this part
Of GERMANY are bitterly hostile 10 the principle
Of obligatory public relief They seem to re-
gard 1t as mean evasion. rather thnn an in-
smllmcnt Of what liz conceived by the working
classes to be due to them from society
The French system Of poor relief on the other
hand. rests on very different principle. While
the English poor laws and the Elbcrfeld authori-
ties confer the legal right to exact support and
impose no other condition except that the ndi-
Rence shall be real. the French charitable legls.
lation admits no right at all in the recipient but
acknowledges the moral duty Of allaying suffer
ing. At the nrst glance II might appear that tho
recognition OF duty in one quarter implies the
concession OF n right in the other. But In prac-
tice there is n wide difference between teaching
u child that he must rely on his own cNertons.
and will have no certainty Of exterior aid In
the crises Of his life. and instillng the
idea that he has the right to shift AZ
will his burdens on society In the latter
case he will be likely 10 help TO creatc tho
crisis in the other he will struggle 20 ayert 10
up TO the last moment. This view. however. OF
collective charity. although 1t controls the ac-
tual organization OF public bcnehccuce. has not
always prevailed in France. In 1872. tho Con-
vention declared tho assistance OF the poor 10
be sacred debt. and established an elaborate
system Of national relief A so-called book ot
National Benevolence recorded the names OF
MI INDECENT persons. and pensions were nllot-
ted to them OF from $40 TO 1872 Tho State
proved. however utterly unable to support the
cost Of this scheme. which. accordingly. was
abolished in 1896. Recourse was then had to q
plan which formed the nucleus Of the
existing system. public bureaus bsina
charged with the distribution OF aims at
the homes Of the poor. These bureaus
are comprehended under an administrative
organization, known as the Assistance Publique.
which exists in Paris and in all the great citiea
az well as in many country districts. Through
this channel flow not only the subYentons from
the public purse but by far the greatest part Of
private benevoence, including collections made
by the Church. The central idea Of the distri-
button is that commune. represented by it's
bureau. should look after it, own poor and
assist them at their homes. Beyond the age OF
infancy or carly youth. the Intervention Of the
bureau is discreet accidental. and essentially
temporary. The result is that TO receive slight
assistance from IT, no more brands the recipi-
ent as a pauper than would the acceptance OF a
gift from a visitor in England. Another conse-
quence OF the non-obgntory system is the alb
sence Of the acrimonious discussion imposed
upon officials where. as at Eberig,i, a work.
ingmAn with wife and children. who can prove
his Indulgence, is entitled to demand three dol
lars week. such compulsory methods OF relief
naturally entail an attitude Of suspicion and
are harsh in thoir operation. whereas the treat
mont OF the poor by the officials OF the French
bureaus is conslderate and kind.
A review Of all the data would Indicate total
of about two and half millions Of outdoor
paupers in England against rather more than
one and a half millions in France. though the
atter country has much larger population.
1t appears that the average amount expended
yearly on each outdoor pauper in England 10
about $3.50. while in France IL is but 1880. The
bulk OF the outlay for charitable purposes.
under the French system. takes this direction,
but IT Is. OF course. impossible 10 help every
Door person In his own home. since there are
many who have none. For such persons are
designed tho hOsp!ces, which, We mead not say.
hayo little or nothing in common with hospi-
unlike tho Sailors Snug Harbor ut Staten
Island aud intended to support tho aged and
nnrm poor Of both sexcs. poor orphans,
foundlings, incurables. and certain classes Of
inonensive lunatics. Neither are thay 10 be com
pared in the details OF their economy with the
poorhousos and warehouses; Of England and
the United States, An INDECENT person. disabled
by any cause for seli-support. and who is fortu-
nate enough to gain admission 10 the Hospice
NJ Bc6tre. for instance. is well provided for
during his lifo. There is nothing whatever
penal In tho arrangements. the inmates being
free to 20 out three DAYS in the week from in
the morning 10 az night. The dietary. too ia
cNccllent-soup, meat. and vegetables. u dessert
II grapes or pears, and a tumbler Of sound
bordeaux per DAY being allowed 10 each man.
We may sum uu in n word the characteristic
merit of the French system over other methods
Of poor relief. Individual character is not
weakened by it, but fortified men being taught
TO rely upon their own eXertons. Hnd not to eX-
act assistance as a legal right Tho want Of
thrift among English artisans is provrrhial