Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-01-14
7-7--7-777777777
A GREAT, GOOD WORK.
sight Restored to the biind-i'' ""'
of 1:,x Made Happy.

Among the charitable INSTITUTIONS III
Virginia there IL none tina, should appear
10 human sympathy more strongly thah
one that WAS established III our '''i'''
some fifteen years ago. for the prevention
and cure OF blindness among our ihuise"'
citizens When such men as rehviai
Joseph r. Johnston. Mr.. James Aufed
Jones. Dr. Levin ). Joynes. and DR.. Or
lando Fairfax. who were OF the huinper
OF its corporators, recognized the need "a
II to meet and combat d growing e'"'
the necessity for It's establishment 10
clearly shown. Year after year IL mas
gone on, comforting the inesiimaple piess
ing OF sight upon hundreds OF persons al
ready blind. and preventing the 'eff'pie
afiiiction OF blindness among thousdhuS
NJ those suffering with eye diseases
which threatened this unfortunate result
The las, report of the Richmond rye,
Lar. and Throat iniirmary SHOWS 'na'
nearly seventeen thousand OF such ca9e'
have received the benefits oil the ihs'ilu-
ton. For the care and RELIEF OF THESE un-
fortunate persons. and for the perp IVA
ton of tnls great work. chari'aDie iauieS
have labored incessantly, generous
physicians OF skill and experience nave
given their time and labor without COM
pensation. Should such a boon TO the
suffering poor be restricted ana hamper
ed i'm this good work for the lack OF the
little pecUniary assistance II needs US
only source OF revenue has been prlNa'e
and public charity, ana, NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
the assistance OF liberal friends TINS mas
been wOfuIy deficient TO meet the ne
mands upon its resources. For some years
the city of Richmond has given a smah
annual contribution, and for four years
past the State has appropriated sl'V"
year. to be applied at tn rate OF 81 per
diem to the board OF such indlSent pilhu
as were committed to the institution from
the counties of Virginia. Could the state
spend money more judicioIsiy IMAM III lhe
prevention and cure OF blindness Does
not every blind person among the IN
digent of our State become burden upon
the county or town I'm which he or she
resides. and indirectly burden upon the
Stat itself? Is not this affection of blind
ness more far-reaching still I'm the IN
crease OF pauperism when It's victim Is
the head of a family with NUMBER or
persons dependeH1 upon him?
Does il not therefore. from a iinanclai
standpoint. pay the State better TO legis-
late as far as her means allow 10 pre-
vent this evil than it does to care Tor
aud educate the blind poor? The appro-
priations for the insane asylums are as
much for the purpose of restoring the
minds of these unfOrtunates as for tdklnS
care of the incurable insane. why not
apply The same consideration TO the cura-
bic blind poor?
The present appropriation is altogether
inadequate TO meet the demands upon
the institution for the relief OF worthy
applicants. Cannot slignt increase IN
the amount be made. especially in we"
of the fact that the State receives sucn
ample return for its small Investment!
During the four years OF the operation
Of the present Law 1872 blind persons nave
been committed 10 the institution from
the counties. and of this number ia were
completely restored to sight, II were par
TALLY restored. and 4 proved hopeless
cases The average cost to the state OF
each blind person was a fraction over go;
and certainly each bind and helpless
person restored TO sight ana usefulness Is
worth more than $50 to the State. Is not
this as good a showing as any investment
the State makes?