BY PROF. CHAS. J. LITTLE, PH.D., State Librarian of Pennsylvania.
The State of Pennsylvania makes generous provision for her poor—or, since
one half of the inmates of her alms-houses are foreign born, it will be
better to say, for the poor within her borders. In the twenty counties
of the state in which there are no alms-houses, and where the poor are
cared for under the township system, there are expended perhaps $300,000
annually. How the poor are cared for under this wretched system, it were
perhaps better not to inquire too curiously. In the remaining counties of
the state there are sixty-one alms-houses, the total cost of maintaining
which amounted in the year 1883 to $1,296,945. In addition to this sum,
these same counties spend a quarter of a million of dollars in what is
called “out-door relief.” Much of this latter expenditure is, judging
from the report of the Commissioners of Public Charities, sheer waste.
These sixty-one alms-houses of the state shelter 8,630 inmates, of whom
2,328 are women, and 1,024 children. In the year 1883, 1,739 inmates of
the alms-houses were reported insane. By act of the last legislature
children over two years of age are excluded from the county alms-houses,
and insane persons are ordered to be removed to the state hospitals.
Unfortunately, the legislature neglected to appropriate the money
necessary to carrying out this reform, and as a consequence, there has
been serious trouble, and probably not a little suffering throughout the
state. It would not do to speak of all these sixty-one alms-houses as
merciful institutions. Some of them are branded by the Commissioners of
Public Charities as abodes of cruelty; others, as breeding places of vice
and immorality; others still as utterly inadequate, both in building and
management, to the purposes of their existence. Among those thus branded
are the alms-houses of two of the richest counties of the state—Chester
and Cumberland. On the other hand, many of these institutions are worthy
of all praise, the taxpayers having spared no expense in the erection
and equipment of the buildings, and the management being intrusted to
conscientious men and women.
In addition to this provision which the state has made for the poor
within its limits, there are numerous private institutions for the care
and comfort of the adult poor. There is, for instance, in Reading, a
“Home for Aged Widows and Single Women,” which, at present, contains
eleven inmates, its full capacity. Many more seek the benefits of this
institution than can be accommodated in the two story brick dwelling
which has been built expressly for its purposes. In Philadelphia there
is a “Home for Aged Couples,” containing twelve inmates; an “Old Man’s
Home” in West Philadelphia, containing 65 inmates; the “Penn Asylum for
Indigent Widows and Single Women;” the “Maypother Home for Women;” a
“Home for Infirm Colored Men and Women;” and the “Edwin Forrest Home for
Aged and Infirm Actors.” These are undenominational. They are supported,
partly by admission fees, which are required of those receiving the
benefits of the various homes; partly by the property conveyed to the
homes by the inmates, but chiefly by contributions and bequests of
benevolent individuals.
The Roman Catholic Church supports, through the Sisters of the Good
Shepherd, “Saint Ann’s Widow’s Asylum,” to which widows over fifty years
of age are admitted; they also have a “Home for the Aged Poor,” under
the care of the Little Sisters of the Poor, which has at present some
three hundred inmates. Christ Church, Philadelphia, has a “Home for Aged
Women,” as have also Saint Luke’s Church, in Philadelphia, and Saint
Luke’s Church, Germantown. There is also in Philadelphia, a “Home for
Aged and Infirm Methodists,” with accommodations for one hundred men and
women.
Under the Constitution of 1873, the legislature is forbidden to
appropriate any monies to denominational or sectarian institutions,
no matter how large their scope, or how unsectarian may be their
benevolence. But there is nothing to forbid generous appropriations
to such homes for the aged and infirm as are not under denominational
control; yet the managers of such institutions should bear in mind that
in order to secure any help from the state, they should make report
of their workings to the State Board of Public Charities. Next to
the institutions for the adult poor, it will be best to consider the
large provision which has been made both by the state and by private
individuals for the care of children; especially for the care of orphans.
First of all stands that magnificent network of charities which covers
the entire state—