The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1893-03-03
Concerning the Poor Farm
EDITOR lola REGISTER:


ticle in the REGISTER concerning the
poor in Allen county, must say he
is not correct in some of his state
ments. He says the overseer of the
poor farm, for watching and taking
care of the paupers of our county, is
payed the sum of $1200.00 a year,
while the paupers are kept and fed
and clothed at their homes all over
the county and at the expense to the
taxpayers of more than 100000, now
add the 100 to the 5000 and we have
1900, which amount he says the poor
of Allen county cost the taxpayers.
But in this he is mistaken and has
the amount S9S6.OO to high.
The superintendent of the poor farm
gets $3.50 per week for adults and
children over II years and S1.25 for
children under II years, for which he
was payed last year sl279 and this in
cludes clothing. The amount of those
who applied for temporary aid is
$685.. The actual cost of keeping all
of the poor of Allen county is 1924
which includes medical attendance
and collins. To the poor of lola town.
ship 1 gave $4,000. / have on my
poor book for 1892 81 persons. 10 of
them are under II years and 80 are
over II years and to divide S333.O0 by
81 will give S6.43 to each person in
clothing and provision. 1t would
cost 1886 to keep 81 persons one
year at the poor farm, and $40 for
one month, which is SIG more than
it costs for IL months at their homes.
Mr.. Kelley says: 81 am told by
our trustee this is economy" 1 (the
trustee will let the above figures tell
whether it is economy or not. Mr.. X.
says: ~ venture the assertion that
not one in ten would ask for help that
are now draining the public, would
do so if he had to go to the poor
farm" 1 am quite sure he is mistak-
en- in that assertion. But take it for
granted his assertion is true, it would
cost more if one in every twelve of
them went than to the 81. Why, sir,
it would cost $3.50 to keep adults one
year at the poor farm. Mr.. X. says:
81 see there are several bills allowed
for boarding paupers which he don't
understand" In explanation will
say there is a law giving trustees
power to make arrangements with
poor parents or other persons to take
care of weak-minded or insane per-
sons that need special care. Provid-
ed it does not cost more than it costs
at the poor farm. He also don't seem
to realize that we must have home
ready for those that are not capable
of taking care of themselves and have
no one to care for them. We ask how
many would apply for help if they
thought they would have to go to
work. He seems to be inclined to
deter the poor from asking for little
help by virtually saying we will take
you and your children to the poor
farm and bind out your children II
you can't support them. Don't you
think it would be better to give lit
tie to the poor mother at home and
let her be with her children? Those
little ones that she has labored for for
years, from early morn until late in
the night and would risk her life to
save from harm. Those little ones
belong to her. Although we have a
law giving the overseer of the poor
the power to take them from her il
she cannot support them, yet We
have higher law which we ought to
consult in our transactions. 1t is
Gods law.
Now Mr.. Kelly don't you think ii
would be economy to give little help
at home and make them comfortable
and happy? 1 always feel happy
when I see others happy, don't you?
The amount it takes for these poor
families doesn't cost each tax payer
very much and doesn't cost those
anything that pay no tax.
With reference to those you say was
born tired. Don't you think if you
and 1 had family of ranging in
numbers from to 8 to support and
had to do it by day labor and labor
scarce, some one might say we were
tired. If they don't say so am sure
we would get tired quite often.
ROBERT Cook.