Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-10-28
as the Duty Of the State to Care fol
All the Poor of the State" b,
Charles n, Baker.

Charles II. Baker, Esq, of Portland
delivered paper upon, rs It n,
DUTY of the State to Care for All the
Poor of the State?" Mr. Baker 2pok;
as follows:
1T Will be nearly or quite impossible
in the time allotted to me to give al
the reasons, but our answer to the
question. and with the same degree %
emphasis, would be, no. and one strong
reason i, that for the present It is nol
practicable. Statuary cnactments haV,
fixed the responsibility in the first in
stance upon the municipalities OF til.
State. The exceptions for which Tho
State may now and in the future bt
finally responsible are as follows:
Persons residing in plantations who
ave no legal settlement in any town
4 city within the State, or who may
ave lOSt Il settlement by a 3-year resi-
tncc in any unorganiZed township
,lthOut public aid, or who since 1873.
ave lived for five successive years il
ONE other state and all who receive
'ubliC aid who have never acquire,
gal settlement in any town or city
within the state. The latter class b.
tie enactments have been made tn,
Tards OF the state and towns furnish
Jg aid to such are to be Reimbursed
the state. But the rules adopted b,
tate officers regarding proof of stici
on-Scttlamcnt are such that in man,
asses they cannot be complied with
md it rests upon the town or cit!
,'hich ha.; furnished the aid and tn,
My redcemins feature is that it is
"bt against the State and therefor.
not barred by any statute of ii,nita
ions. A
AT present. therefore, the cXprns,
+ caring for the poor who have lega'
ettlement in any town. or city with
II the State is upon the town or cit!
where SGcn settlement is found to bt
md while conditions as they now eXis,
Sc cannot but believe that it IS best
or the municipalities and for the Sat,
md also for the persons receiving pub
ic aid. for certainly a town or city
'ught to manifest as much interest in
he welfare of an Individual or family
Tho may have lived there for i've sue
essive years without public aid as the
State would on which such person OF
amily may possibly have to depend
'ntirely for support for what of life
nay remain to them.
Such ought to be the case in any
went. The desire of certain towns to
e rid of the burden of caring for all
he poor who may be found to have
settlement therein because of the cX-
oense and because of the poverty of
he town is not founded on the condi-
ions as they really are, for while their
population may have decreased from
10 to so per cent. the valuation in many
not in most instances, | think on in
vestigation. will be found to have in
reased we'll up to the proporiionate
decrease in population and the de-
crease in population SO far as paurcr-
ISM is concerned is to their financial
benefit. for they will not be liable to
have as many requests for public aid
in a population of 1000 as they would
rs if it We're 20O0. Then too, the State
could not for long time have IS good
facilities for caring for the poor as the
towns where the applicant for aid
CHANGED to live and such town be re-
imbursed by the State. And it is fair
to assume that the expense to the
State would not be any less than it
would be if the towns rendered the
aid sought at its own expense.
In the State of Massachusetts, the
state is liable for all who receive pub
lie aid and under the pauper law OF the
state have no legal settlement therein,
but under somewhat different condi
lions from those now existing in this
State, and the bills Of the cities in that
state against the state for supplies to
such non-settled persons as shown by
their annual reports are what would
seem to us here in Maine extravagant
~ large. My own experience and OBJ
convinces me that our towns
and cities would be fairly liberal in the
testowal of public charity if they ser
to tie reimbursed by the State. Fur
Their. it must be years before the State