New Britain herald., 1930-10-28
OLD AGE PENSIONS AND POOR HOUSES

fer to call them. Under any name they mean the sameithing.
 This being the case, so Mr. Rogers reasons in rather a bald and ribald style. Dean Cross and MT. Lonergan are hard put to satisfy these counties with the old age pension system.
 Which is a peculiar kind of an argument
 In the first place, who in these counties referred to by MT. Rogers are proud of their poor houses? Ger tainly the citizens as a whole have not been consulted as to how proud they are about them; and certainly those in them are not likely to be boastful. Probably, if there were time in which to make an investiga- tion, it would be found that those possessing the pride were the Repub- lican county officials, who are proud about anything that the central or ganization wants them to be proud about.
 The discussion about the old age pension system narrows down to a basis of cost. The argument that the Republican spell binders endeavor to make is that such a system would be costly. How costly they do not say. The facts are easily obtainable.
 The United States Bureau of Sta tistics, after nationwide survey which included Connecticut, found that each inmate of a poor house costs the state an average of s334.64 a year. No doubt the costs in some poor houses are less and in others more; the Governments figures are the average for the entire country.
 In Montana, where an old-age pension system has been in effect for nearly seven years, the average cost of maintaining person under the law is less than half of this sum.
 For instance, in 1928 the cost was s165.73 per person; and in that year the cost was less than in any of the three previous years.
 In Wisconsin the law has also been found cheaper than the poor house system, the average acost there being $224.35 per person.
 And an important point not 10 overlook is that in the poorhouse the aged person is wholly dependent upon the county, while under the pension system he is free to do odd jobs suited to his strength, and the income from these contribute to his support. He may also have contribu- tions from friends and relatives, in themselves not enough to keep him without the pension, but added to the pension enable him 10 get along outside of a poorhouse.
 The idea that under the old age pension system a person would re- ceive a pension from the state on which he would be entirely depend- ent is erroneous. He would obtain aid from the state in consonance with his needs-enough pension to add to what he can earn or receives from relatives to enable him to maintain himself in decency and respect. The proposed pension bill in Connecticut calls for an income from all sources of So weekly, or s46S a year. In the ten states and five Canadian provinces having such laws applicants must give proof of his character and the right to pension, and only the deserving aged men and women-deserving through misfortune-are aided.
 The present poorhouse system is a dumping ground for the sick Tn body and mind. A census report showed that in the nations poor houses were 2,052 insane persons. 1o,1SS feeble-mindcd, 1,066 epilep- tics, 524 deaf, 3,045 blind, and 5,415 crippled inmates. All these should be in special institutions devoted for the care of persons thus afflicted, and not in poorhouses. This practice of throwing respectable. sane and decent unfortunatcs in the company of the diseased, both bodily and mentally, is common practice wherever poorhouses exist.