The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-01-09
Persons Who Paid ClaSSed in the
Records as PauperS.
MRS. NELSON'S MANAGEMENT.
Secretary Pratt Files Scathing Re-
port With the State Board OF
Examiners.

to-day made scathlng report 10 tnat
BODY regarding the Old Peoples Home in
San Francisco. The report was accepted
and placed on file.
Mr.. Pratt asserts that State money has
been Illegally secured for the home; that
the business of the institution is most
exclusively conducted by board of lady
managers and that the board is controlled
by Mrs. Metha Nelson. the president. In
investigating a claim for the home for
1924 20 for the support of aged persons in
INDECENT circumstances Secretary Pratt
said that he found on small sheets of the
claimbOOk column headed money re-
ceived this half year." and which is in
tended for amounts received by the home
from or in behalf OF any of the inmates
named on the claim book during the said
half year; but not one cent was inserted
in that column, although affidavits sworn
to by Metha Nelson. the president, on
July Is, 1898, contain this clause: THAT
the true amount of money contributed,
paid and received for feeding, lodging
clothing or for other purposes for any in
mate named IN the report is set down in
the proper column.
But l found" says Pratt, "that the
amount of money received from eleven of
the inmates named on the claim book dur
ing the said half year amounted to 1929 So
Seven of the inmates are boarders who pay
S14 80 per month. said home declining to
receive So or more per month from them
for the reason that by so doing no aid
could be claimed from The State for those
inmates, which is clearly an evasion of the
act approved March Is, 1898, entitled An
a IN ata 70 he
of aged persons in INDECENT circumstances ,
section Z. subdivision 4, of which reads {:
That no person for whose specific sup
port there is paid to any such institution
the sum of SIS or more per month shall be
entitled TO aid under this act One of the
inmates paid to said home Sal per month
or S246 for six months, and yet aid is
claimed the same as if nothing had been
paid. One of the inmates for whom aid is
claimed paid in October and Novem Der,
1892, STA. being one years board in ad-
vance at S14 90 per month. Two of the
inmates for whom aid is claimed have not
been in the home this year, and one Of
the inmates left in April, 1893, but that
did not prevent aid being claimed for these
three inmates for the full six months,
although the affidavit sworn to by Metha
Nelson. the president. on July Is, 1893.
contains this clause: That each person so
named has been fed and lodged exclusive
ly in said home and at the cost of the
authority of the home continuously during
the whole period named in the report
"Of 100 names Oh the claimbo only
seventeen were admitted to the home
without payment of any money, said
seventeen being classed as charity in
mates, the balance being either boarders
or having paid money on entering. One Of
the inmates wrote me last April asking if
his name was on the list of those receiving
aid, and l replied that it was, and he then
wrote that he had paid $500 in l $50 70 the
home. and entered his protest against the
State paying any money to the home for
his support or maintenance. and desiring
to return into the State treasury the amount
of money the home had received on his
account. This could not be done. as the
State had PAID him no money, and the
only way would be for the home to return
the money it hed wrongfully drawn. Such
a person Is not an INDECENT person lin
other words, pauper), and the home had
no right to put him on the public records
as such. but l find the home has drawn
from the State for him since july 1. 1890
to December 81, 1892, inclusive. the sum of
$3.50. The question arises whether a per-
son that enters the home and pays S25OO in
advance for maintenance is an INDECENT
person On other words, poor and destitute),
and II the home has any right to receive
aid from the State for that person, because
he is not Door and destitute or else he
could not pay that sum of money.
Some of these inmates were recently
surprised to find that they were being
ciassed as paupers on the public records
here and were very indignant that the
home had been receiving aid for them
when they supposed the money they had
paid to the home for their intenance
was sufficient to maintain them comforta-
bly, the remainder of their lives. The idea
seems to have been to receive very few
charity inmates and TO receive as much
money as possible from others who were
able to pay and then to get aid from the
State for all of them. The afidavits on
each of these balf-year claims were sworn
to by Metha Nelson. president, and COZ.
tain this clause: THAT the home or author
tiles thereof have not received from anv
source the sum OF SIS or more per month
during the current half year for any one
whatsoever except when so stated and
also. that she is president of the afore
said home for the support of aged persons
in INDECENT circumstances, and is ac
quaiDted with the condition of said home
and number of inmates therein and the
amount received for the support of each.'
Il also find that from the inmates for
whose aid this $3.50 has been illegally
drawn. the smallest amount paid bv any
Of them was equal to a rate of $50 per
month and the largest amount paid by any
of them was equal 20 rate OF $3.50 per
month for the time they were in the home
during the half year. Can it be possible
that this can be called carelessness in thu
face of portions Of the affidavits that /
have quoted, or was it done knowingly
with the idea that 1t would never be
noticed ?a1f the president was unacauainted
with the amount of money received for
the support of each, it would De different.
but the affidavits stated otherwise. IT.
seems to me that this institution that is
drawing aid from the State OF nearly
SO. 600 per year ba sed on a law tho grant