That the private charitable societies of Boston oppose the plan to
transfer to the state the care of deserving widows with dependent
children as an independent class is indicated by the hearings on the
various bills now before the Massachusetts Legislature. Four bills have
been introduced at this session. The first of these (House Bill No. 815)
provides:
“If the parent or parents of a dependent or neglected child are poor
and unable to properly care for the said child, but are otherwise
proper guardians, and it is for the welfare of such child to remain at
home, the juvenile court, the probate court, or, except in Boston, any
police, municipal or district court, may enter an order finding such
facts and fixing the amount of money necessary to enable the parent or
parents to properly care for such child, and thereupon it shall be the
duty of the county commissioners, or, in Suffolk County, the city
council of Boston, to pay to such parent or parents at such times and
as such order may designate the money so specified for the care of
such dependent or neglected child until the further order of the
court.”
The second bill (House Bill No. 1369), which is even shorter, restates
the general principles of the first bill without providing machinery for
carrying its provisions into effect. It reads as follows:
“Children whose parents are unable to support them shall not be placed
in state, county or municipal institutions, but if either parent, or
any relative or other suitable person, is maintaining a home, payment
shall be made to such parent or relative or other person for the
support therein of such children.”
House Bill No. 1366, the third proposed act, was prepared by
representatives of many of the principal charitable organizations of
Boston.
The bill does not so much state a new doctrine of relief for dependents
as define more clearly the duties of the local overseers of the poor and
more definitely chart their course in their work preliminary to granting
relief. The avowed purpose of the bill, in the language of its
proponents, “is to correlate the various public and private agencies of
the state into one co-operative relief system under the general control
and direction of the state Board of Charities and to use the local
overseers of the poor as the active disbursers of the relief granted.”
It is also made the duty of the overseers to the first instance to
determine whether the mother is “fit to bring up her children and that
the other members of the household and the surroundings of the home are
such as make for good character, and that aid is necessary.” If this
question is decided by the overseers in favor of the applicant they then
are charged with the further duty of investigating the financial
resources of the family and relatives, although the law does not clearly
state to what degree of consanguinity this inquiry shall extend. They
shall next inquire as to “individuals, societies or agencies who may be
interested therein.” If they have by good fortune found anyone who is
legally bound to support the mother and child, they are directed to
enforce the full legal liability of the obligation.
They are admonished to get the family to work if possible, and to secure
such relief as can be obtained from organizations and individuals. The
law adds, however, that none of these directions shall be construed “to
prevent said overseers from giving prompt and suitable temporary aid
pending compliance with the requirements of this section, when in their
opinion such aid is necessary, and cannot be obtained from other
sources.” The bill provides, therefore, that local overseers shall aid
such mothers and children as they deem worthy if they can find no one
else who can be forced or coaxed into doing it. The bill further
provides that the overseers shall follow up their initial activity by
visiting the recipients of aid at least once in three months and shall
keep a careful detailed account of the conditions found at each visit as
a part of their official records. It is made the duty of the State Board
of Charity to supervise the work done by the overseers and to report
thereon in its annual report to the state Legislature.
This bill was presented because of the report of the commission on the
support of dependent minor children of widowed mothers, and the measure
(House Bill No. 1770) proposed by the commission. The general court of
1912 created a commission to investigate the condition of widowed
mothers, provided $1,000 for its expenses, and ordered it to report at
the present session. The commission as appointed consisted of Robert F.
Foerster of the department of social ethics of Harvard University; David
F. Tilley of Boston, for many years a member of the Central Council of
the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and at present a member of the State
Board of Charity, and Clara Cahill Park of Wollaston, Mass.
The report of the commission and the arguments in support of its bill in
general were:
That the present system of outdoor relief is inadequate;
That frequent separation between the widowed mother and her children
occurs;
That the cause of the mother’s dependence is seldom purely local but a
matter in which the state in the large is concerned;
That therefore the state should grant the relief and not the locality
alone;
That while all needy mothers, whether widowed or not, are proper
subjects of the state’s bounty, yet widows are in a class which need a
different technique of relief.
The commission expressed its belief that widows’ families were the most
important single group in poverty and that they should be dealt with by
a method unhampered by the need of dealing with other cases. The
commission’s bill, it was argued, would further break up indiscriminate
relief, introducing state control and state standards for a great group
of dependents, continuing the process begun for the feeble-minded,
insane, blind and the like. The friends of the bill believed that the
state Board of Charity administered so much relief that widows would not
be adequately cared for by it. They urged that while House Bill No. 1366
in terms disclaimed any intention of regarding its proposed relief,
pauper aid, yet in fact it could not fail to be so regarded by possible
claimants. The commission called the aid it proposed giving subsidies
rather than pensions, as it regarded its aid as in no sense payments for
services rendered but assistance in rendering needed service to the
state.
The report of the commission was signed by Professor Foerster and Mrs.
Park. Mr. Tilley presented a minority report stating that he was fully
in accord with the desire of the commission to adequately assist widowed
mothers with dependent children, but that he felt that the report was
based upon insufficient evidence. He further believed that the present
machinery of relief was entirely adequate for the purpose desired.
The bill proposed by the commission provided for a permanent commission
of five, two of whom should be women, who should have authority to order
subsidies paid by the overseers of the poor, in such sums and manner as
the commission should decide. The commission is authorized by the bill
to make its investigations by its special field agents, and it is made
the duty of the overseers to visit the family at least once in every
four months and to report its condition to the commission. Two-thirds of
the amounts paid to families who have no settlement and one-third of the
amounts paid to all other families shall be repaid to the overseers by
the state Board of Charity. No relative other than those legally bound
to aid the family, and no private society shall be asked to contribute
any portion of the subsidy.
The commission by its bill provided a new state machine designed to
administer a specific pension or subsidy to a specific class of
dependents. The bill proposed by the opponents of the commission’s bill,
defined and enlarged the present relief machinery of each locality. The
purpose of the friends of each bill is unquestionably to render the same
service to the needy widow.