Library Collections: Document: Full Text

ANSWERS GIVEN TO QUESTIONS PUT BY THE AUTHOR.

1. Question. "What civil rights do they lose, if any, in becoming paupers?"

Ans. "The right to vote, and to hold property as against the town which supports them." -

Question. "Can they vote?"

Ans. "No."

Question. "Can they act on a jury?"

Ans. "No."

Question. "Can they own any property?"

Ans. "No."

Question. "Can they, if they have children, direct when and where they shall be apprenticed out?"

Ans. "No."

Mass. Law. Answers given by D. B., Esq., an Attorney residing in the State.

II. Question. "What civil rights do they lose?"

Ans. '"Jurors must be freeholders: they cannot act as jurors."

Question. "Can they vote?"

Ans. "Yes."

Question. "Can they own any property?"

Ans. "If they relinquish their support as paupers, they can."

Question. "Can they legally marry?"

Ans. "Yes: But when the overseers of one town fraudulently procure a male pauper of another town to marry their female pauper, such marriages have been annulled."

(I believe the overseers of the poor always object to paupers marrying where the said marriage will be a burden to the town. They do not oppose the marriage of a woman who is on the pauper list, to a man who is a freeholder, or who will take her away to another town. AUTHOR".)

Question. As to children?

Ans. As before.

Vermont Law. Answers by L. G. M., Esq., and J. D. B., Esq., attorneys residing in the State.

By the laws of Connecticut, Judge O----- of New Haven, and Judge E. R. F. of the same city, informed the writer, formerly paupers could not act as jurors, because required to be freeholders, which restriction was now removed. -- Pauperage itself does not disqualify for voting. But children are not under the direction of their parents. The usual marriage restriction prevails in Conn. Paupers cannot there choose their own mode, or place of support. Neither can they select their own masters. They are often kept on poor fare in miserable houses.

Judge T. B. Osborne, of New Haven. Conn., informed me that three towns, including the old and respectable town of Fairfield as one of them, combined together and built a poor-house for their common use. Here he said the utmost filth, vice and wretchedness prevailed. Several children, in the most squalid, degraded condition, were kept there, and no body would tolerate one of them in his house. At length two ladies determined to investigate the matter and attempt its reform. They made a visit to the poor-house, and such was their report of its condition that the town took up the matter and voted it a nuisance, and broke up the establishment. The ladies then took these children, washed them, dressed them, took care of them, and applying for it to the legislature, obtained an act incorporating their society as the Female Benevolent Society of Fairfield, (I think.) The town also voted to give them the amount it had formerly paid for the support of the poor. They went forward with their benevolent enterprise, and soon had the happiness to see the whole system of squalid pauperism, especially in respect of children, entirely run out. The children were placed in good families, the best of families. Mrs. O------- herself brought up one of them, a young girl, who married afterwards one of the most respectable and intelligent men in the county. The wife of the Hon. R. M. S., brought up several of them, who were afterwards among the finest women m that vicinity. And one excellent result of this movement was, almost totally to put an end to all such vagrancy and pauperism in the town,. -- AUTH.

Mr. Brewster says of the Alms House in New Haven: "Providentially I visited the Alms House, and found it in a miserable condition -- three-fourths of all the inmates having been brought there directly or indirectly by intemperance, and they still had access to strong drink. Not only this; it was a brothel; many had been confined there for licentiousness, and the evil was continued in the place designed for reform. But more than all, I found more than a score of children, some of whom were the offspring of the inmates, and many were orphans indeed.

The condition of all was deplorable. No stated or uniform worship was held on the Sabbath; and the instruction of the children, if instructed at all, was conducted in the most loose and indifferent manner." Mr. Brewster's Private Journal. -- AUTH.

Mr. Brewster advocated at the town meeting his plan of improving the condition of the inmates, and was met generally by jeers and rebukes, and especially when he asked for an additional tax of one cent on the dollar to effect his plans. -- Auth.

The writer proposed questions which were answered by L. G. Mead, Esq., J. Dorr Bradley Esq.. and O. Smith, Esq. of B" , Vt., to this effect

Question. "Are the paupers any direct tax on the town, as you keep them?"

Ans. "The farm cost $2,500. Its interest is no otherwise realized than being thus applied. The superintendent has a salary of $200. Some years a trifle is saved towards the next year's wants or improvements. At other times the expenses slightly overrun the earnings.