The sun., 1888-02-16
County Farm Question.

A couple of weeks ago THE SrN re-
ferred briefly to the present system
of caring for the destitute who require
public aid suggesting that this impor.
tant subject be thoroughly considered
and discussed with view to remedy
ing the evils that now exist. Since
then the discussion OF this question
has been quite general and great
variety of suggestions have been Of
fered; but of the wide diversity OF
opinions that have been heard ex-
pressed none has been in favor OF a
poor farmland this for numerous
reasons that are patent to all who
given it any thought. 1t is rubbing
against the grain to suggest to already
overburthened taxpayers the assump-
tion of increased Indebtedness. "A
poor farm at best is a questionable
adOrnment to any county.
Under the most favorable manage
ment it is il slip.shod and downat-the-
heels concern. The superintendent
who could manage Il poor farm sue
cessfully would be better off doing
the same thing for himself. The fact
of the matter is he is oftener a stu
dent of practical !politics than of
practical husbandry.
The communication of Mr.. Hutch
ins last week on the subject attracts
the attention of taxpayers from the
fact that he is thoroughly Qualified
from actual experience to present
the matter in as clear and striking 4
form as possible.
The amount of orders drawn against
the Poor Fund last year was nearly
two Thousand dollars. Ofthis amount
more than one-fourth, $514.08. was
for extraordinary relief-the payment
of taxes for many who suffered from
damage by hail during the summer
of 1885. Moreover, she amount of
$500 was drawn against the same
Poor Fund for the payment of the
county physician. In exact figures,
then, $ll5l.3S represent the cost of
food, fuel and care. or board, for the
county poor during the year. exclu
sive of the cost of medical attendance.
Counting all members, or estimating,
of the families relieved, it is safe to
say that the mantle of county charity
did not cover to exceed As persons.
During the year 1886 the cost was.
exclusive of medical attendance
again, 1882 SO, and fewer individual
eases OF Notwithstanding the cost of
medic Il attendance in this compari-
son for the reason that medical atten-
dance must be about the same regard
less of the method of relief. Sect'ry
Hart says in the Second Biennial Re
port of Corrections and Charities:
"In general. it may be said, that any
county which pays more than thirty
cents per inhabitant for pauper ex-
penses needs to examine expendl-
lures narrowly to see If they are not
excessive. Asarule only eXtraOrdl
nary exig encies can justify so large IL
rate of expenditure On the basis
of population as shown by the census
of 1885, ASH for Stevens county. the
per capita cost to each inhabitant du-
ring 81 was something over 43 cents.
including the extraordinary exigen.
cy" referred TO above, the assistance
extended to hail.storm suffer ers.
Otherwise. we fall just within the
limit set by the experienced Sec.
retary of the Board of Corrections
and Charities.
The conclusion, however, is forced
upon us that our pauper population is
growing and will continue to grow;
and the further conclusion that the
unequal distribution of the poor fund
as we'll as general extravaganza, is a
thing particularly to be guarded "a
gainst. What provisions. especially
with an eye to the future, ought to
be made! Mr.. Hutchins' suggestion
of the mouse and lot in town is il good
one and in the direction Of economy
md more effective relief. 1t will
draw the lines more severely, too, on
actual. deserving objects of relief.
And another suggestion is this:
That without the actual outlay for lot,
building, outfit, superlntendence, and
the many unthought of requisites for
beginning such an institution. parties
in the Village could be arranged with
by contract, under the watchtul su.
pervision of the board of commission
ers ora committee thereof, to accom-.
plish what is wanted at a great saw.
ing of money to the taxpayers.
lenten REGULATIONS.