Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-10-07

stances where the persons who take them to
board, con the lowest bid," are as poor
as the pauper themselves, and where the
money is an object to them, that the very
food they get to eat is an argument against
the plan The families are generally of one
or two classes, viz: A laborer to whose
weekly wages of 81, S. and S6 per week 50
additional from the poor tax makes an in
explicable temptation; or else family who,
by taking a pauper into their family, will
| receive a servant or man-of-all-work about
the place, with SO or 81 per week for his
board, whereas the only other way they
could get such a servant or man would be
| to hire one and pay him or her so much per
week and furnish boarding for nothing.
SOME EXCEPTIONAL ovERsEERs
The overseers furnish clothing and in
Manor township, of Armstrong county, the
overseers are of the more conscientious
class, maintaining a strict personal super
vision over the paupers in the homes where
they place them. But that cannot be said
of all overseers.
Martin Yetter, overseer in Smithfeld
township, Monroe county, told the State
Commissions:
Suppose have pauper at your house
keeping at ST 80 per week, and this man says,
81 will keep him for ST." Then, of course it
is my business to take him there. The way
we find the cheapest and best place Is to let
everybody in the township know. We know
everybody in the township AS soon as
there is a pauper on our charge, you would
be surprised how soon it goes through the
township. Everybody knows it, and comes
to us and makes this offer. Because they all
have to pay for him, and they want to keep
him as cheap as possible. We have generally
got to have them kept by the same kind of
people they are. The money we pay them
for boarding paupers is really part of the
mistress
ter of charity.
Thomas Shively, overseer of Pocono
township, Monroe county, told the commits
sion:
One pauper is kept by his son. For him
we pay 81 90 per week. He can't work at
anything. His son is not worth anything.
We bnqen MANY now one Of
them died last winter. We had seven or
eight last year back, but they died off, and
don't think there are any young ones COM
ing on.
VERY sHREwD SCHEME.
Another overseer, asked why he boarded
a pauper with a family of three whom he
said were as poor as the pauper himself, re-
piled: eff we didn't board him there, we
would have to take charge of the other
three themselves as charges" In other
words, this shrewd overseer makes the 81 80
per heeh duSWeI lOT Iue puDlIC IeIlcl W iOuI
persons-27 cents and fraction apiece each
week. Does it help them?
In Armstrong county 1 found many cases
last week where a son is paid 50 per week
for the board of his father; a mother re-
ceives 81 90 per week from the overseers
for the board OF her daughter; or 81 is given
a whole family for the care of an aged
grandparent. "We keep the family to-
gether," the overseers tell me, "and if we
didn't double up that way we would have
to pay SO much apiece for them in other
families
Is keeping the family together" under
such circumstances wise economy or true
charity? Not only does it encourage them |
to expect the weekly allowance of money,
but they get little substantial profit out of |
the pittance. 1t is one reason why medical |
bills and funeral expenses are higher under |
the antiquated system than by the county |
almshouse protection, with its substantial
foods, plenty of them, and comfortable
home life How quickly some of these
families would look for light employment
if told that the almshouse was their only |
refuge if they needed permanent help.
L. E. SToFIEL.