Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1898-02-03
The Poor Farm Question,

There are two parties interested III
the purchase of Poor Farm and the
erection of q Poor House thereon in
Butler county. viz: The TAX payers
and paupers If it be to the interest of
these parties to have these things we
should have them. but if otherwise, the
proposed change now pending should
be voted down at the approaching cleo,
ton
In my Judgment Poor House, with
farm attached, would be beneficial to
both, and hence favor change. That
the tax payers will be benefited by the
new arrangement is obvious from its
working in neighboring counties and in
other counties throughout the State
where it has been in active operation
for years Some Of the facts ! am about
to state have already been submitted to
your readers, but their pertinence to
the matter in hand will Justify repe
tition with view ''to stir up their pure
minds by way of remembrance We
mango County has perhaps as many or
almost as many paupers as Butler
County and her officials report her ex-
pense for the support of her poot az
averaging about $500 annually, while
the poor of Butler County costs about
S21 900 each year. One of the Commits
sioners of Crawford County writes:
I'VE think il much cheaper to support
our poor at County Farm than any
other way, the farm fafaishes large
amount of the necessary supplies aud Gg
IL general thing the inmates are con
tented" = Mexican County Commits
sioner writes: 1--WE consider Poor
Farm and Poor HOUSE indispensable
towards taking proper care Of our poQy
and we are Of the opinion in Mexican
Comfy that Poor Eouse is the thing
for every poor district to hays.
In line, the Commissioners Clerk vi
Bedford County writes; You will
make no mistake if you build 2 Poor
House in your county. il is the cheapest
way of taking care OF the poor" aad
Mercer County is no less emphatic iB
her testimony on the same subject.
These testimonials are from gentlemen
of good standing and who are in a posi-
tion to know the working of the estab
lishment under consideration and hence
their testimony should be considered
conclusive on the point, that 1t is de
cidedly 10 the interest of the tax payers
that the new method of caring for the
poor be substituted far the one now in
existence in our county.
And that the change proposed viii
prove beneficial to the paupers every
thoughtful and observant person, /
think, must readily admit, the present
method of disposing Of this unfoTtuhats
class, styled the poor in Butler Coup
ty, is worse than cruel. As Is known
to all, for the most part they are sold
to the lowest bidder irrespective of
comfort, or interest in any sense, and
as a general thing the class that gets
them has neither means nor disposition
to make them comfortable and more
than this. ia too many instances the
surroundings do not contribute ~ ti-eiF
morals or religion.
OF course there arc honorable excep-
tions, some who have them in charge
no doubt treat them kindly and well.
These however | am safe in saying
are few in number, and for comfy
like oggs 10 cleave to system that
makes the ma; tFeatment of the poor
even possible is nsibhe, A4auiy nor
/ Christian.
Christ while sojourning in the flesh
was poor himself. He has n fellow