Library Collections: Document: Full Text

They are a neglected, suffering, dying class of our fellow-men, often punished severely by their keepers, if they even on a good excuse of fatigue, or weakness, or old age, refuse to do as they are told.

Such is the northern poor-house in our moral and virtuous communities -- prevailing more or less extensively through the New England States, a mode of supporting the pauper people -- numbering, outside of the cities, perhaps ten thousand souls!"

The report was listened to with great attention, and deeply mortified and distressed most of the clergymen present.

Rev. Mr. Archdale begged leave to inquire of the brother, whether town paupers could act as witnesses?

Mr. Rodman replied, "They can, because the town may be benefited in certain cases by their testimony."

Rev. Mr. Dilly inquired, "Can town paupers be sued for debt?"

Mr. Rodman said, "Yes, they can be sued, but at the risk of the plaintiff' in the case. If he sues a pauper for debt, and gets a judgment in his favor, he must run all the risk of serving on him the writ."

"Can he himself sue for debt?" inquired Rev. Charles Shirley.

"Yes, because if he receives any property, he liberates the town from his future support."

"Are paupers free to contract marriage?" inquired the moderator, Rev. Samuel Chapman, D.D.

"A woman can be married out of her state of pauperage of course by a responsible party, and paupers sometimes are said to be married legally under ordinary circumstances. I doubt whether the selectmen of a town would allow a pauper to marry a wife who was a pauper in another town, and bring her home an expense to them. They do sometimes marry, but the circumstances of the case are always considered."

Rev. Mr. Shirley said he wished to read to the brethren the following scrap which he had cut out of a newspaper recently -- he believed from the Washington Union of May: -- "An aged maiden lady of Portland, Maine, 74 years of age, was carried to the work-house, who has a brother living in that city who was taxed the past year on the assessor's book for over $14,000; also a sister whose husband is taxed for $8,000; and a cousin who is reported to be worth $50,000."

"Now," said Mr. Shirley, "I know nothing about this matter further, but if it is true, as is here represented, ought we not to blush for our humanity, and weep over the imperfect workings of our common and holy religion?"

"I saw a statement in, I think, a Connecticut paper," said the Rev. Henry Wiley, "that the town paupers of Stamford, in that State, to the number of thirty, (more or less,) were kept during the last severe winter, in a cold, damp building, in a manner most revolting and cruel; the writer, a Southern man said, 'in a much worse condition than even blacks at the South.' I haven't with me the paper, but I remember the substance of it, and it was as I have given it you. I think if these things are true, or any portion of them nearly so, we have a solemn duty to discharge in our own towns."

The Moderator, and also other brethren, said they had often seen such statements, but they had not treasured them up, neither paid them much attention at the time. They confessed that they had been guilty of great neglect towards the paupers. "I hope," said the Moderator, "we shall not let this matter die from our recollections, but that we may make inquiries at home and elsewhere preparatory to our individual and associational action. We must not sit quietly over a subject of such amazing wrong!"

"The Legislature of Connecticut," said Mr. Rodman, " has just affirmed the anti-citizenship of paupers, placing them on the same footing with fugitive slaves. This is a section of the act: 'Third, all other persons, being in or coming into and locating within this State, with intent to remain and reside permanently as citizens, EXCEPT aliens, paupers, fugitives from justice and fugitives from service, and all persons within the jurisdiction of this State, shall in all cases be entitled to the protection of its constitution and laws.' It appears," said he, "from this, that when any individual of that State, though previously a man of business and character, becomes a pauper, he lose his citizenship -- is no longer entitled 'to the protection of its constitution and laws.' Is not this rank with injustice and cruelty? -- shall we tolerate a state of things in New England, in respect to our poor white people -- our own citizens, that simply for the offence of poverty, denies them the benefits of citizenship -- the benefits of the constitution of free and intelligent States? I think we may well hang our heads if we do, and hereafter, forever close our mouths upon the enormities and cruelties of Slavery! Shall we consent to it that ten or twenty thousand white citizens, aged, infirm and poor, dependent on the charity of their fellow-men, yet guilty of no crime, shall we give our consent to the statute that takes from them their citizenship and the protection of the laws? Truly, if so, this is the age of refined barbarism, instead of high, enlightened Christianity. We need not go out of New England to thrust home the sacred remonstrance, 'PHYSICIAN! HEAL THYSELF.'"