Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Question. "Were they not formerly a direct tax on the town?''

Ans. "They formerly cost nearly (not quite) $l,000 per annum."

Question. "Does the present mode work more beneficially to the paupers as well as more profitably to the town, than did the old method of keeping them?" (i.e. by sale, contract, private agreement.)

Ans. "Much, very much better for both."

Question. "Is the old method entirely or but partially abandoned?"

Ans. "Only partially, but the change is progressing."

Question. "In what manner were they formerly kept?"

Ans. "By contracts with persons to board and clothe them, each being sold separately, and by contract with the Doctor for medical attendance for the whole.

Says James Brewster, Esq: "In the year 1825, my attention was called to the subject; and at our annual town meeting of that year I asked an appropriation for improving the condition of the Alms House, and gave my views in full. A committee was appointed, who, after an investigation of the matter in all its relations, reported in favor of my proposition, and the appropriation was granted. The moral and physical improvement of the paupers were considered as indissolubly connected, and it was recommended that suitable employment should be found for all.

The improvements were effected as speedily as possible, and labor suitable to the ability of the inmates was introduced in all the departments. Those most able were employed in farming and horticultural pursuits, and the products were sent in their season to market, where they found ready sale.

The beneficial effects were soon manifest, not only in the improved condition of the inmates, but in the decrease of the expenses of their support. Although the population of the city at that time was (less than) but about seven thousand, the annual cost was about $5.000. The improvement has been progressive; and though we have now some thirty-three thousand inhabitants, yet for many years past the income has exceeded the expenditures.

As a moral duty, no one should be indifferent to the condition of the poor; for such are the vicissitudes of human life, that many of the descendants of those who once rode in their coaches through Broadway are now inmates of an Alms House."

Mr. White in his report, says of the new Alms House and farm at New Haven;

"Ninety acres of land were bought about a mile and a half from the centre of the city, and a new Alms House erected. The land cost $100 per acre, the buildings $15,000. Soon after this, expenditures were made for farm buildings and stock, beside 150 acres of wood land, which brought the whole outlay nearly to $30,000. Much objection was raised against these appropriations, but it proved a most fortunate investment, as in consequence of the advance of the city in that direction, the farm of 90 acres could now be sold for more than four times its original cost.

COMPARATIVE ECONOMY OF OLD AND NEW SYSTEMS,

"From the year 1811 to the year 1820 inclusive, the expenditures of the town for the support of the poor in the Alms House alone was $42,902, or about $4,300 a year. This was under the old system, with all its folly, laziness, filth and licentiousness; and as the population of New Haven was then 6.000, we may infer that under a like system, to-day, now that the population is 30,000, the yearly expenditure would be over $21,000. But under the present system, with its stately edifice, its fine farm, its neatness and home-like comforts, the institution proves not only self-sustaining, but actually a revenue to the town. Expenses from 1852 to 1856 inclusive, 5 years, $14, 075,50. Receipts for the same period, $15,539,68! The success of this reform is triumphant."

In the Springfield, Mass. Republican, Jan. 13, 1857, we read as follows, (the article by the editor is a review of Mr. Brewster's letter to the N. Y. Tribune on Pauperism.)

"The New Haven policy is that which is aimed at in Massachusetts, in connection as well with the reformatory as the charitable institutions, but without the same success. The State paupers are a heavy tax upon the commonwealth, and the town paupers upon the towns. * * * * The aim to make every pauper establishment, so far as possible, a self-supporting one, is a humane aim as well as one which best consults a sound public policy. * * *

Thus there is essentially no pauperism in New Haven. The City takes those who are not all able to manage for themselves, and managing for them, places them where they can earn their own living. In other words, the pauperism of New Haven is a self-supporting institution."

From returns to the General Assembly of Connecticut, in May, 1852, by a committee on the subject of State and Town Paupers, it appears that there were in 1851, in 134 towns from which reports were obtained, (there being 15 other towns that gave no answers,) 3,680 paupers in the State. These were kept in 37 Alms Houses, and 90 Poor-Houses, and other places as circumstances made it desirable.