Date |Number of| Date |Number of
| persons | | persons
------+---------+-------+---------
1906| | 1906|
May 1| 313,117 | May 24| 62,239
2| 313,117 | 26| 39,432
3| 279,631 | 29| 54,883
4| 230,207 | 31| 44,289
5| 264,570 |June 2| 42,374
6| 262,027 | 5| 39,084
7| 233,989 | 7| 35,237
8| 223,915 | 9| 34,268
9| 222,313 | 12| 29,621
10| 204,637 | 14| 22,753
11| 186,960 | 16| 22,295
12| 147,232 | 19| 16,608
13| 139,405 | 21| 16,246
14| 126,970 | 23| 15,451
16| 97,886 | 26| 15,340
18| 91,812 | 28| 15,339
22| 73,163 | 30| 15,353
------+---------+-------+---------
[Illustration: CHART 1.--PERSONS TO WHOM RATIONS WERE ISSUED IN MAY AND
JUNE, 1906]
Among the persons who received rations, as indicated in the table and
chart, are included both those to whom raw rations were issued and those
who were served with free meals at the hot meal kitchens.
3. DISTRIBUTION OF CLOTHING
Of secondary urgency was the demand for clothing. The requests for
clothing were fewer than those for food, though many refugees fled from
the burned areas with no clothing except nightgowns or calico slips, a
poor protection from the cold nights and chilly April mornings and
evenings.
The records of distribution are incomplete. General Greely estimated the
number of persons who received clothing at 200,000. Much of the clothing
donated bore the wellknown mark of the charity gift in kind. The second
hand clothing in many cases was, to repeat General Greely’s comment,
“more or less of a burden on the Red Cross.” Some was useless; some
required to be cleaned and disinfected. The new clothing was, in the
words of Captain Bradley, who had charge of its distribution, “of old
and dead stock of mediocre and poor quality.” Part of the shoes and
articles of clothing supplied from the army stores and charged against
the appropriation from Congress were of obsolete pattern. The same
criticism was made of some of the household goods donated. A large
number of the cots, for instance, were worthless or of poor quality.
There was the further handicap to the distributor, of not knowing what
donations were to be expected or when they were to be received. This
uncertainty meant serious delays in supplying the need and severe
criticism of the administrators, but the latter did not feel themselves
justified in making purchases of clothing in large quantities when
clothing similar to that ordered might, later, be received as a gift.
The memory is vivid to some of those who worked in the refugee camps
during the midsummer of 1906, of the children in striped sweaters and
gay Tam-o’-Shanters. The caps were not suitable for summer wear, but
they had been sent in large quantity with the sweaters to be
distributed. The mental picture of Golden Gate Park with its scattered
barracks and tents pitched close to ornamental lakes and neglected
flower beds is accentuated by the note of high color given by the
sweaters and caps.
Distribution of clothing, like the distribution of food, was quickly
undertaken by independent groups of volunteers, who collected and gave
out what could be got in the city itself. While the fire was spreading
the army from its stores in the Presidio gave blankets and quantities of
shoes, shirts, ponchos, and other clothing for men. As the donations
from abroad began to arrive in large quantities they were quickly handed
out without careful discrimination in sorting or adapting to individual
needs.
On May 4 the army, in consultation with Dr. Devine, took charge of the
organization of the clothing and household distribution. The Crocker
School on Page Street was taken for use as a warehouse. A warehouse for
second hand clothing exclusively was established ten days later in the
Everett Grammar School, on Sanchez Street. Neither was adapted for use
as a department store, but nine departments were organized, each in
charge of an experienced clerk:
1. Men’s clothing and hats.
2. Men’s furnishings and underwear.
3. Women’s furnishings and underwear.
4. Boots and shoes.
5. Children’s clothing and hats.
6. Children’s underwear.
7. Bedding and furniture.
8. Household goods.
9. Tentage.
From the departments went during May a daily average of twenty
truckloads; during June, eighteen. Among the household goods that had to
be handled were towels, sheets, pillows, pillow cases, blankets,
comforters, mattresses, stoves, cooking utensils, cutlery, dishes,
brooms, wash tubs, washboards, boilers, irons, clotheslines, axes,
chairs, tables, and sewing machines.
The method of distribution was similar to that for food. Each civilian
chairman made requisition for the articles that were found by the
superintendents of the stations to be needed within his section, and
each requisition was filled so far as the warehouse stock would admit.
The articles were sent to the separate stations for distribution. The
army had charge of reception and distribution of goods; the Red Cross,
of determining who should be entitled to aid. The first registration was
used as a basis for determining need, but there was no uniform system
of record and various forms are found to have been in use,--an instance
of the necessity for a general, accepted form of registration and
record.
[Illustration: Soldiers guarding the supply wagons
WAREHOUSE FOR SECOND HAND CLOTHING]
It was planned to complete by the middle of July the general
distribution of clothing and household goods by determining whether each
refugee at that time had a decent supply which would prevent present
suffering. After that date the Rehabilitation Committee was to consider
further need of clothing and household goods in relation to general need
of rehabilitation. The distribution did end practically on August 1,
when those who had requisitions for articles that had not been furnished
were given by the Rehabilitation Committee the cash value of the
articles called for on their requisitions as far as approved by the
civilian chairmen of their sections.
* * * * *
The later development of the methods of distributing clothing shows
increased efficiency as greater experience was gained.
After August 15 the Bureau of Special Relief[58] had charge of filling
orders for clothing for those living outside the camps whose needs were
urgent but not great; the more important cases of need of clothing and
household goods were cared for by the Rehabilitation Committee. From
August 6 the residents of the camps were supplied with all necessary
clothing through the Department of Camps and Warehouses, an arrangement
which continued until the middle of October, after which issues of
clothing were made by requisition through the department headquarters on
the supply of clothing kept in Golden Gate Park. From December, 1906,
the Department of Camps and Warehouses sent individual requisitions for
clothing to the Bureau of Special Relief. Possibly these were such as it
could not itself fill.
[58] See Bureau of Special Relief, Part II, p. 145 ff.
All issues of clothing were stopped on May 16, 1907, and the supply on
hand was turned over to the Rehabilitation Committee, which distributed
it among a number of institutions. It is probable, however, that for a
long time only a very small quantity of clothing had been issued to meet
the needs of the aged, infirm, and sick at Ingleside.[59] It is to be
noted further that as early as August, 1906, issues were limited, and
were made only to destitute persons whose circumstances could easily be
investigated.
[59] See Part VI, The Residuum of Relief, p. 319 ff.
4. FURNISHING TRANSPORTATION
The rapid exodus of refugees from the city during the first week after
the disaster meant a desirable lessening of the task of providing food,
clothing, and shelter. The transportation work, which divides itself
into four administrative periods, began the first day of the fire, when
refugees were given free passage across the bay, down the peninsula, and
to points far inland. No special arrangement was made. The
transportation companies merely threw open their gates and let the
people crowd into the boats and trains. The committee on transportation
of refugees, a sub-committee of the Citizens’ Committee, had
comparatively little work to do. It told the public that the railroads
were ready to carry the people and it made inquiry as to the ability and
willingness of other communities to care for refugees. From many
communities, some distant, came quick, generous offers to care for
definite numbers of people.
When the first period, the period of indiscriminate free transportation,
ended on April 26, the Southern Pacific Railroad, the only railroad
running out of the city and the one that in normal times carried the
greater part of the suburban traffic by ferry and train to towns across
the bay, had transported, according to an official report, the following
number of free passengers:
TABLE 12.--PERSONS CARRIED FROM SAN FRANCISCO AS FREE PASSENGERS BY THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, FROM APRIL 18 TO APRIL 26, 1906
==============================+=======
Destination |Persons
|carried
------------------------------+-------
Suburban points around the bay|226,000
Other points in California | 67,000
Other states | 7,684
------------------------------+-------
Total |300,684
------------------------------+-------
The value of this service, according to the official report, was
$456,000. The report states that on April 19 the refugees, most of whom
went to Oakland and adjoining communities, left San Francisco at the
average rate of 70 per minute. There is no report from any other
transportation company. The 226,000 passengers carried to points around
the bay included some thousands of persons that crossed more than once,
many to go back and forth daily on public or private business, others, a
considerable number, to view the fire and ruins.
On April 25, a committee on transportation was organized informally by
the officials of the various railroads and the men in charge of relief
work, in order to prevent an abuse of free transportation. The new
committee, which was recognized as authoritative by the Citizens’
Committee, had for chairman William Sproule of the Southern Pacific
Railroad, for secretary and executive, Oscar K. Cushing. On April 26, a
transportation bureau was opened in a small office on Fillmore Street
near Franklin Hall. The secretary was given power to issue orders for
passes and part-rate tickets, which because of his experience in
railroad business and in social work he could be relied upon to do with
discretion. Each applicant in the long file which day by day stretched
down Fillmore Street and around the corner to Sutter, a perplexed,
restless file of men, women, and children, eager to be out of the city,
was interviewed personally by him to determine whether the applicant
were able to pay any part of his fare, whether the best way to restore
him to self-support was to grant him transportation, and whether he
would be a charge upon the community to which he wished to go. When
letters of recommendation or personal interviews failed to give the
information desired, a quick investigation was made. If the applicant
were able he paid something toward his ticket but never more than at the
rate of half fare.
On May 10 the railroads stopped the issue of free and reduced rate
tickets as a relief measure. This marked the end of the second short
period of regulated free transportation work. A week later, on May 18,
the transportation work was merged with that of the Bureau of Special
Relief and Rehabilitation,[60] and when Mr. Cushing became executive
head of the joint work no material change was made in the method of
caring for transportation cases.
[60] See Part I, p. 14.
During the third period, beginning May 10, the period of united effort,
the committee guaranteed to pay in certain cases reduced railroad rates,
at first a half-fare rate, later a one-cent-a-mile rate. The railroads
in their discretion gave in other cases free passage provided the
committee made a brief statement of the circumstances of the applicant
with a recommendation for free passage.
When the permanent Rehabilitation Committee was organized, July 2, 1906,
the transportation bureau was again merged, which marked the beginning
of the fourth period of its work, the period of completed organization.
During the fourth and last period, which ended June 2, 1908, when the
last transportation grant was paid, the transportation methods held
unchanged with but occasional variation of rates and with a rapidly
decreasing number of cases to be considered.
The relative importance of the transportation work to the other
rehabilitation work, on the basis of the number of individuals
concerned, steadily decreased from one-half in the first two weeks to
about one-eighth in the middle of July.
Many a case was brought to the attention of the Committee by a distant
relative or friend. For instance, a man wrote from a little town in
Illinois as follows:
“Dear Kind Friend,--I have an aunt by the name of ---- ----. You will
do me a favor if you will send Mrs. ---- to Chicago, Ill. I would send
the money to pay fare but as I have not got it to spare I cannot do
it. I hope you will be kind-hearted enough to send her to Chicago.
Also arrange to get her meals on the train for her. You can call on
her, Mayor Schmitz, at ---- and have a talk with her. Please get my
Aunt Clara to come back if you can do so.----If there is anything I
can do for your City please let me know and I will try and help you
folks at once. There are tears in My eyes as I think of the beautiful
City you once had that is now in ashes. Reply at once.”
“Aunt Clara” could not be found.
An inquiry addressed to a man in whose behalf the Committee had been
asked for help by a Chicago clergyman brought this terse and
satisfactory reply:
“Dear Sir,--We are no longer in need of relief and we do not desire
transportation to Chicago. I have so informed Rev. ----.”
Vague plans, or plans that did not commend themselves, led to refusal.
There were, for instance, a man who thought he would like to try his
fortune in Nome; a Syrian who had an idea he might get on better in
Portland, Oregon, though he had no relatives there and no prospect of
work; a Scotch Australian with a large family, known to the Associated
Charities for years, who looked hopefully to Australia, though he had
left it because he was a failure there; two girls, domestic servants,
who wanted to go back to Ireland because they “were afraid of the
shakes”; an old man whose only reason for returning to Europe was his
desire to see his son ordained a priest; a widow, “saleslady” by
occupation, who asked to be sent to Los Angeles on the strength of a
letter from a friend, apparently a traveling man living in a hotel,
whose mildly expressed concern for her welfare she took as a promise to
provide a home. A stonemason wanted to leave his family without
resources and try his fortune in Canada. A man whose family had been
sent to Massachusetts in the early days to leave him free to get a start
got tired of trying and wanted to join them. Another man merely wanted
to go away on a visit, leaving his family behind. After the middle of
June, requests that wife and children be sent away for a visit while the
man stayed behind at work, were refused, though in the abnormal
conditions of the earlier days they were frequently allowed. In a
considerable number of cases, as of carpenters, shoemakers, domestic
servants, and laundresses, transportation was refused because it was
known that nowhere else in the country was the opportunity so good for
work and good pay in those occupations.
In looking over the records one finds many reasons given for leaving San
Francisco. Jewelers, inventors, masseurs, hair dressers, producers of
“art work,” said they could find little demand for their services in the
first few weeks after the fire. Acrobats, mental science lecturers,
teachers of elocution, music, Hebrew, religion, and higher mathematics,
could find no one to demand their teaching. Saloonkeepers and barmen had
lost their shops through the closing of the saloons, and when they
opened July 5, conditions would be hard because a higher license was to
be asked. It seems like a jest of fate that at a time when thousands of
people were living in tents a tent-sewer could find no occupation. It
also seems curious that physicians and nurses should have wished to
leave the city, but it is a fact that the demand for their services was
decreased rather than increased by the disaster. Physicians suffered
perhaps as much as any other class of persons, for they lost not only
their offices, libraries, and instruments, but also a large proportion
of their patients,--the profitable, well-to-do ones left town, and the
poorer ones were stimulated by the out-of-door life, plain food, or by
necessity, into unusual good health.[61] Bakers, grocers, and
lodging-house keepers asked for transportation because, though there was
a demand for their services, they had no capital with which to make a
new start. Tailors, dressmakers, milliners, printers, and a number of
others could not, or would not, wait for the demand which came for them
a few weeks later. In the middle of May, for example, it was thought
that ladies’ tailors could not expect to make a living for six months;
early in June employers could not begin to get the number they wanted.
In but few cases could lack of occupation be accepted as the sole
justification for leaving the city. Carpenters and laborers who could
not get work in San Francisco in June could hardly be expected to get it
anywhere.
[61] In Part IV the chapters which discuss condition and status of
families in camp cottages, and of those who took advantage of the
bonus and loan plans, show that the handicap of ill health was heavy
after the first few months.
Sickness was a reason for transporting some of the refugees. A man who
had been hurt in the earthquake was sent to relatives as soon as he was
able to leave the hospital. Another man, whose little store had been
wrecked by the earthquake, he himself injured, and his wife and one
child killed, was sent to his sister in Chicago, his other children
having been provided for by a charitable organization. A woman suffering
from cancer was taken to her sister in Brooklyn by a nurse who was also
being assisted to reach her destination. It was not uncommon in the
earlier days to find a woman so nervous that her physical condition was
a menace to the prospects of her family. One such woman would not allow
her husband to do any regular work; another was so irritable that
desertion seemed imminent. In such a case as the last the only hope of
saving the family seemed, paradoxically, to lie in temporary
separation. More than one woman who begged to be sent away for a visit
was told, “We are doing this, you understand, because we are sorry for
your husband and want to give him a chance to get on his feet here; but
please encourage him by writing every week.” The policy, in spite of
these instances, was definitely laid down that families should be kept
together.
There were numerous examples of that re-distributing of responsibility
for dependents which takes place when losses come to families
individually. An aunt or grandmother in Nevada or Missouri or New York
would offer to take care of a little boy or a young girl, in order to
relieve the family in San Francisco. An epileptic woman whose daughters
had lost their work on account of the fire was given a home by a cousin
in Massachusetts. This cousin, with unnecessary caution, wrote to the
woman: “I will not let him (Dr. Devine) know you have any
daughters--only that you are without a home and in poor health.” A woman
had been visiting her married daughter in San Francisco, and the
daughter, after the fire, could neither entertain her longer nor pay her
fare home. Still another instance was that of a Roumanian, seventy-seven
years old. He had had a home with his granddaughters for the previous
two years, but they were burned out and his only refuge was the old home
in Roumania. Unfavorable surroundings as a reason for granting
transportation may be illustrated by the case of a young girl who had
been living in a basement with twenty refugees, men and women. She was
sent to her father in Ohio.
The willingness of relatives and friends to receive refugees determined
the transporting of a large number of persons. The letters that found
their way to the files of the Rehabilitation Committee as evidence that
the would-be travelers would not be unprovided for at the end of their
journeys form a unique body of testimony. They give a glimpse of those
obscure wells of charity in which we all believe, on account of frequent
individual instances, but into whose depths we are seldom allowed to
look. The open-hearted offers of hospitality that went out from humble
homes all over the country were, in fact, a contribution to the relief
fund, though they found no place in the list of donations, the quality
of their mercy being too subtle. They may be given recognition by a few
quotations from many letters:
From Delancey Street, New York, to a Jewish tailor with a wife and six
children:
My dear brother,--I have received your letter, also dispatch, and in
spite of all my efforts I send you only ten dollars. I cannot send you
more for the present. I advise you to come over as soon as you can
with your family, on my responsibility, as there are plenty of work
for you. Don’t spend the time with nothing but come as soon as you
possible can.
From a woman in Council Bluffs, to her sister:
You must and had better come here. J---- can work at his trade here
and you can stop with us until you can do better.
From a little California town:
My dear cousin,--I am awfully sorry to hear you and all the family
lost everything. But let you and Jennie and all the family come right
up and stop with us. You will want for nothing as we have plenty for
all and as many more. Hoping you will come right away, ------.
From a Russian woman in Chicago:
Beloved sister,--You shall not think about anything but come to
Chicago------. You shall not worry about anything. Everything will be
provided for you when you arrive here. You shall also get work.
A mother in Michigan wrote to her daughters, who had been in domestic
service:
Girls, for my part I wouldn’t have any desire of living side of the
Pacific ocean any longer and you know we would feel better to have you
back here with us.
Another Michigan letter, from the brother of a refugee:
I want you to come with all your family and share our home until you
get all rested up and see what is best to be done. Old frozen Michigan
ain’t the worst place after all.
A woman in Spokane who offered a home to a friend and her little girl
wrote, with a naïve appreciation of her own generosity and of the happy
combination of disposition and circumstances to which she was able to
refer:
I write to extend my sympathy to you and you know I have a big heart
and a large house and would be only too glad to have you come and stay
with me as long as you want to and it would not cost you one cent.
A man in Nevada who had secured work for a former business associate,
wrote to him:
Through the kindness of friends (and I may say myself), we have
furnished you and wife with a home furnished complete, so if you can
get means to come up you will be O. K., as your rent is paid for a
couple of months.
There could be no doubt that the boy whose mother in Los Angeles had
found work for him, and who wrote him as follows, would be looked after:
A Mrs. T---- to whom I appealed for you gave me as a loan on the sly
five dollars for your fare down, which must be returned as soon as
possible so please do not use it unless you fail to get a pass.
Some friends in southern California offered a home to three sisters,
working girls:
If you can get passes, which no doubt you can by applying to Mayor
Schmitz, as I have written to him, asking for you, come down and stay
with us for as long as you wish. We have a house in our yard which we
can fix up for you without any inconvenience to us. You can live there
as long as we stay here.
The great majority of these people who were assisted to leave the city
seem to have been those that could easily be spared from San Francisco
during its period of reconstruction. They were, on the whole, lacking in
physical vigor or in mental qualities of courage and initiative, or in
attachment to their city. They did, however, give the impression that,
under less exacting circumstances, they would have been able to get
along creditably. It seemed fair to expect that in nearly all the cases
the substitution of a more favorable environment would have results so
satisfactory as to justify transportation as a rehabilitation measure,
while the burden of dependence, whatever it might be, would be so
distributed as not to bear heavily in any one place. The policy of those
responsible for decisions was not to send to other cities persons that
were likely to become dependent on charity. The transportation agreement
of the charity organization societies of the largest cities was
respected. The prompt answers to telegraphic inquiries given by all the
eastern cities was a very important help. It was reassuring to find that
the plan that was satisfactory in ordinary times proved indispensable in
the emergency.
For the second period of the work of transportation, which seems to
represent about the average, Table 13 is given.
TABLE 13.--DESTINATION OF PERSONS SENT FROM SAN FRANCISCO BY THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, FROM APRIL 26 TO MAY 10, 1906, INCLUSIVE[62]
=======================+=====================================
Destination |PERSONS SENT TO DESTINATION SPECIFIED
+-------+---------+----------+--------
| Men | Women | Children | Total
-----------------------+-------+---------+----------+--------
California | 122 | 541 | 379 | 1,042
Oregon | 28 | 103 | 40 | 171
Washington | 20 | 85 | 57 | 162
Colorado | 11 | 46 | 35 | 92
Nevada | 2 | 40 | 11 | 53
Utah | 9 | 26 | 11 | 46
Montana | 5 | 13 | 13 | 31
Arizona | 4 | 8 | .. | 12
Idaho | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8
Wyoming | .. | 3 | .. | 3
New Mexico | .. | 1 | .. | 1
East (including Europe)| 188 | 553 | 322 | 1,063
-----------------------+-------+---------+----------+--------
Total | 391 | 1,422 | 871 | 2,684
-----------------------+-------+---------+----------+--------
[62] Compare date with date given in heading of Table 12. “April 26”
appears in official reports as included in each of the first two
periods, and probably was actually so included.
These figures are based, not on a study of individual cases, but on
lists and registers kept by the various committees in charge of
transportation. Although they probably are not absolutely correct, they
are sufficiently exact for the present purpose. The term Pacific States
in the following table includes the tier of states from Montana to New
Mexico; all east of them is called East. Alaska and British Columbia
destinations are included in Pacific States, and eastern Canadian and
European points are included in East. The number of persons sent to such
points was very small.
The following table shows the number carried for all periods, exclusive
of those carried to suburban points.
TABLE 14.--PERSONS SENT FROM SAN FRANCISCO, BY PERIOD AND BY GENERAL
DESTINATION, APRIL 26, 1906, TO JUNE, 1908[63]
=================+=======+=================================+=======
Period | Total | PERSONS SENT TO |Average
| number+------+-------+----------+-------+ number
| of | Cali-| Other | East | Other | of
|persons|fornia|Pacific|(including|foreign|persons
| sent |points| States| Europe) | points| sent
| | | | | |per day
-----------------+-------+------+-------+----------+-------+-------
1906 | | | | | |
2d Apr. 26-May 10| 2,684| 1,042| 579 | 1,063 | .. | 179.0
3d May 11-Jun. 30| 1,015| 212| 193 | 609 | 1 | 20.0
4th July | 365| 97| 70 | 193 | 5 | 11.8
August | 350| 221| 23 | 106 | .. | 11.3
September | 90| 32| 3 | 55 | .. | 3.0
October | 128| 13| 45 | 57 | 13[64]| 4.1
November | 77| 10| 2 | 13 | 52[64]| 2.6
December | 37| 11| 3 | 17 | 6 | 1.2
1907 | | | | | |
January | 37| 7| 6 | 19 | 5 | 1.2
February | 31| 6| 7 | 18 | .. | 1.0
March | 21| 3| 3 | 10 | 5 | [65]
April | 22| 9| 3 | 10 | .. | [65]
May | 8| 1| 4 | 3 | .. | [65]
June | 3| ..| 1 | 2 | .. | [65]
July | 4| ..| .. | 4 | .. | [65]
December | 2| ..| .. | 2 | .. | [65]
1908 | | | | | |
June | 2| ..| .. | 2 | .. | [65]
-----------------+-------+------+-------+----------+-------+--------
Total | 4,876| 1,664| 942 | 2,183 | 87 |
-----------------+-------+------+-------+----------+-------+--------
[63] Exact information relative to the number of persons sent from San
Francisco during the first period, from April 18 to April 26, and
their destination, is not available. The figures showing the number of
and destination of persons given free transportation by the Southern
Pacific Railroad are given in Table 12, p. 58.
[64] Sent to Porto Rico in October, 9; in November, 50.
[65] Fewer than 1 per day.
TABLE 15.--TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS SENT FROM SAN FRANCISCO IN
SECOND AND THIRD PERIODS
=================================+===============================
Terms of transportation | PERSONS TRANSPORTED
+---------------+---------------
|April 26 to May| May 11 to June
| 10, inclusive | 30, inclusive
+------+--------+------+--------
|Number|Per cent|Number|Per cent
---------------------------------+------+--------+------+--------
Carried free by railroads | 2,096| 78 | 136| 13
Low rate paid by Applicant | 588| 22 | 188| 19
Committee | ..| .. | 597| 59
Applicant and Committee jointly| ..| .. | 94| 9
---------------------------------+------+--------+------+--------
Total | 2,684| 100 | 1,015| 100
---------------------------------+------+--------+------+--------
TABLE 16.--DESTINATION OF PERSONS SENT FROM SAN FRANCISCO IN SECOND AND
THIRD PERIODS
==========================+===============================
Destination | PERSONS SENT TO DESTINATIONS
| SPECIFIED
+---------------+---------------
|April 26 to May|May 11 to June
| 10, inclusive | 30, inclusive
+------+--------+------+--------
|Number|Per cent|Number|Per cent
--------------------------+------+--------+------+--------
California points | 1,042| 38.8 | 212 | 20.9
Other Pacific Coast states| 579| 21.6 | 193 | 19.0
East | 1,063| 39.6 | 609 | 60.0
Various foreign points | ..| .. | 1 | .1
--------------------------+------+--------+------+--------
Total | 2,684| 100 |1,015 | 100
--------------------------+------+--------+------+--------
TABLE 17.--VALUE AT REDUCED RATES OF TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED THROUGH
THE COMMITTEE
=========================+===================================
Terms of transportation | VALUE OF TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED
+----------+-------------+----------
|May 11 to |July 1, 1906,| Total
| June 30, | to June 2, |
| 1906 | 1908 |
-------------------------+----------+-------------+----------
Paid by applicant | $4,987.27| $585.47 | $5,572.74
Paid by Committee | 10,878.32| 30,921.70 | 41,800.02
Estimate of contribution | | |
by railroads | 42,369.40| 5,015.70 | 47,385.10
-------------------------+----------+-------------+----------
Total |$58,234.99| $36,522.87 |$94,757.86
-------------------------+----------+-------------+----------
5. PROVIDING SHELTER
In April in San Francisco, the weather being temperate and dry, shelter
for the homeless may properly be considered an easy third in order of
importance in the supplying of relief. The first night after the
earthquake the people who had been driven from their homes by fire or by
fear of another shock, sought rest in the public squares and parks, in
vacant lots and in military reservations. Bedding was the necessity
carried from their homes by many refugees who expected to return to them
after the danger was past. Each family took possession of the first spot
available. The more fortunate separated themselves from other families
by means of trunks or boxes, or by a sheet or blanket thrown over a pole
that rested on two stakes driven into the ground. As the hours passed a
few real tents were secured, and shacks were made out of loose boards,
tin cans, and sheet iron. Soon, tents from the army stores and from
private sources were provided in increasing numbers and were set up with
varying degrees of order.
Two hundred thousand persons came out from the burned district homeless,
of whom possibly 75,000 left the city. These latter are included in the
number of refugees that sought transportation, as shown in the preceding
section. Shelter was found in some parts of the city for a large number
through the hospitality of friends or strangers, through payment for
lodging in cash or credit, or through the use of unoccupied houses. Two
thousand persons found shelter in vacant houses through the efforts of
the police. The capacity to house the needy was swelled by the use of
basements, attics, and barns. The number of the homeless was increased
to some extent by the general rise in rentals, which was great in
certain parts of the city and which forced a small number of people into
the ranks of applicants for shelter. During the first two weeks perhaps
a thousand persons had no shelter but what they could find in the burned
district amid the ruins or on wharves.
Tents were provided in the first days by voluntary agencies, by the
sub-committee on housing the homeless, by the army, and by the American
National Red Cross. The first named committee, which was one of those
hastily appointed by the Citizens’ Committee immediately after the
disaster, also built barracks. It set to work with great energy, but
with complete independence of any other committee, especially of the
Finance Committee and of the committees on relief of the hungry and on
transportation, whose work it therefore overlapped. It appointed another
sub-committee, on roofing the homeless, which canvassed the city for
vacant houses and rooms and then induced but few persons to make use of
its finds. It formulated plans for the construction of two permanent
camps and made recommendations to the army to place all the homeless in
Golden Gate Park, to which park it had as early as April 20, assisted by
an army officer, hauled lumber for the building of barracks, for the
flooring of tents, and for latrines.
[Illustration: An administration headquarters
Camp No. 6, The Speedway, showing barracks
CAMPS IN GOLDEN GATE PARK]
This committee was discharged from duty, on request of its chairman, two
weeks after its appointment, but its members continued to incur
unauthorized expense for at least four weeks longer. The committee made
such a fine showing for speed that its work got ready recognition, speed
in those first days being at a premium; but its lack of deliberation led
to the embarrassment of the relief authorities. The barracks could not
be connected with street sewers because they were situated on low
ground, so later there was difficulty in disposing of waste and surface
water. One of the camps, Camp 6, could not be given fire protection, and
both camps had to have heavy additions made to the initial expenditures
to secure greater privacy and protection against drafts. In them the
refugees were brought into an association so close as to be either
demoralizing or humiliating. Both camps would probably soon have been
closed if the authorities had felt justified in abandoning them after
the large expenditure made. The initial mistake was to erect barracks
during the emergency period. Tents, which the army and the American
National Red Cross stood ready to provide, were much more practical.
They could be moved at small expense from place to place, and until the
rainy season set in they furnished sufficient shelter. Tents, not
barracks, were the need of the emergency period.
The two barracks built in Golden Gate Park by the committee on housing
the homeless were No. 1, known later as Camp 5, near the Children’s
Playground, and No. 2, known later as Camp 6, or the Speedway Camp. Camp
5 consisted of 18 buildings with 16 two-room apartments in each,
separated by a partition only 8 feet high. The rooms were 10 feet
square--a front room with a window and a door and a rear room with no
window or outside door. Camp 6 was of the same type of construction and
consisted of 10 barracks and separate buildings for hospital, laundry,
and other general purposes. The barracks of Camp 5 were occupied from
the first of May to the middle of December; those of Camp 6 from June 1
to the latter part of August of the following year.
As late as the end of May General Greely reported that he could not get
sufficient data on which to base housing recommendations. The first
registration had shown that a little over a fourth of the applicants to
the food stations were living at the same address when they were
registered as on April 17, the day before the earthquake. In a few cases
these people were no doubt housed in tents or shacks on the site of
their burned homes. But most of them had not lost their homes or
personal effects, though they had been affected by the disaster in other
ways. They had lost their work, or had suffered some injury in health
from the shock, or, merely demoralized by the general confusion and the
abundance of free provisions, had assumed a mental attitude of
dependence not really justified. Most of this last class, to be sure,
did not survive the registration, but there were no doubt some who were
not weeded out until after the canvass had been made. Sixteen per cent
more are known to have been living in houses at the time of the
registration, but as their addresses on April 17 were not given, it is
impossible to know whether or not they had been driven out of their
homes by the disaster.
TABLE 18.--HOUSING OF REGISTERED FAMILIES, BY CIVIL SECTIONS, MAY, 1906.
NUMBERS
=====================+=========================================+======
Residence at time of |NUMBER OF FAMILIES HOUSED AS SPECIFIED IN| Total
registration | CIVIL SECTIONS |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII |
---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------
Same as on April 17 | 856| 225| 572|1,105| 197| 424|1,955| 5,334
Tent or shack | 741| 79|1,407| 272|1,082| 467| 317| 4,365
A house different | | | | | | | |
from that of April 17| 640| 294| 669| 924| 681| 945|2,168| 6,321
A house; uncertain | | | | | | | |
whether the same as | | | | | | | |
or different from | | | | | | | |
that of April 17 | 336| 191| 329| 257| 215| 999| 804| 3,131
---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------
Total whose addresses| | | | | | | |
in May were given |2,573| 789|2,977|2,558|2,175|2,835|5,244|19,151
Addresses in May not | | | | | | | |
given | 17| 24| 120| 19| 45| 41| 21| 287
---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------
Total registration|2,590| 813|3,097|2,577|2,220|2,876|5,265|19,438
---------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------
TABLE 19.--HOUSING OF REGISTERED FAMILIES, BY CIVIL SECTIONS.
PERCENTAGES, BASED ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FAMILIES WHOSE ADDRESSES IN
MAY, 1906, WERE GIVEN
======================+=========================================+=====
Residence at time of |PER CENT OF FAMILIES HOUSED AS SPECIFIED |Total
registration | IN CIVIL SECTIONS |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII |
----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
Same as on April 17 | 33.3| 28.5| 19.2| 43.2| 9.1| 15.0| 37.3| 27.9
Tent or shack | 28.8| 10.0| 47.3| 10.6| 49.7| 16.5| 6.1| 22.8
A house different from| | | | | | | |
that of April 17 | 24.9| 37.3| 22.5| 36.1| 31.3| 33.3| 41.3| 33.0
A house; uncertain | | | | | | | |
whether the same | | | | | | | |
as or different from | | | | | | | |
that of April 17 | 13.0| 24.2| 11.0| 10.1| 9.9| 35.2| 15.3| 16.3
----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
Total whose addresses | | | | | | | |
in May were given |100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0
----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
Less than a fourth of the 19,438 registered[66] were living in tents or
shacks. These 4,365 families or parties included some 19,000
individuals. As the population of the “official camps”[67] outside of
Golden Gate Park (which was not included in the registration) was less
than 8,500 at the time, and as it was wellknown that some of the people
in the permanent camps were already providing their own food, it is
evident that in the early days of May about one-half of the registered
tent and shack dwellers were in the unofficial, unsupervised camps and
isolated makeshifts for shelter which were one of the most difficult
problems of the situation. The registration card did not ask what the
character of the dwelling was, and for this reason, as has already been
said, the proportion of persons in tents and shacks was no doubt
understated, since the description given by the enumerator of the
“permanent location” of the family may not always have suggested, when
it should, a tent or a shack to the tabulator.
[66] See Table 7, p. 45.
[67] See Part I, p. 78 ff.
In May about a third of all were living in houses which were not their
homes on April 17. These families, together with those who were living
in tents and shacks, made up 55.8 per cent of the total. Considerably
over half, therefore, of those who were receiving rations in the middle
of May had presumably been burned out of their homes, or “shocked out,”
as one of them put it. Many of those who had found house shelter were
living under very unfavorable conditions. Overcrowding does not show on
the registration card, and bad sanitary conditions can only be guessed
at. In 206 cases it was stated that the “house” was a basement or rear
building; occasionally it was a barn.
The seven civil sections[68] naturally present contrasts in the matter
of housing conditions. In Section VII only 6 per cent of the refugees
were living in tents or shacks, while in Sections III and V almost half
of them were. Section VII shows the highest percentage of families in
houses to which they had moved after the fire, and Section IV is not far
behind. The facts which come out about Section IV at first seem curious.
Although it included about half of the burned area, it had the highest
percentage of families living in the same place as on April 17. The
unburned part of Section IV at the time of the fire probably was more
thickly populated than any equal area in the city, for in other sections
there were great areas either not built upon or occupied by factories,
etc. This was practically one solid residence section filled mostly with
flats and populated by persons employed chiefly in adjacent parts of the
burned district, who thus lost employment, if not property. Although it
contained several permanent camps, only 10.6 per cent of those who were
receiving rations were living in tents or shacks. It is probable that
43.2 per cent who were living “at the same address” included a number of
Italians on Telegraph Hill who were already back on the same house lot,
though in shelters improvised from tarpaulins, boards, sheets of tin,
corrugated iron, and other possible, though unusual, building materials.
Most of the Italians and others who lived about Telegraph Hill had taken
refuge, however, in Section III, in which a part of the Italian quarter
lay.
[68] For section boundaries, see map opposite p. 3.
Section V shows the condition that would be expected in both IV and
V,--half the refugees in tents or shacks, only a small percentage at
their former addresses, and the rest crowded into the housing
accommodations nearest to their old homes. It would have been
interesting to tabulate the distance between the two addresses, but this
would have involved so much labor that it could not be undertaken.
The nationality of the head of the family was given in 14,963 cases,
over three-fourths of all. Over two-fifths of these were native
Americans; nearly one-half were Germans and Austrians, Irish, Italians,
English and Scotch, and Scandinavians, of numerical importance in the
order indicated; and the rest represented many different countries. The
facts are shown in Table 20.
[Illustration: Shelters of sheets and quilts
Tents and shacks
EARLY SHELTERS IN JEFFERSON SQUARE]
It is not possible to compare these figures closely with the nationality
of the population of San Francisco as given in the United States Census
of 1900, because the census figures are for individuals, while these are
for families, the nationality of the family being inferred from the
nationality of its head. In the census figures the native born children
of a German or Irish father appear as born in the United States, while
in the refugee figures such a family group appears as a unit among the
foreign born. In this way it is evident that if the refugee figures
could have been made up on the same basis of individuals instead of
families, they would have shown a considerably higher proportion than
they do of native born, and a correspondingly lower proportion of nearly
all the foreign nationalities. Possibly the native born children of
foreigners would raise the percentage of native born among the refugees
to an even higher percentage than they had in the total population of
the city. A few comparisons, however, it is safe to make. The Irish and
Italians are represented much more strongly among the refugees than
their proportions in the population would require; while on the other
hand, a population of over 10,000 Chinese[69] was represented by only 20
families drawing rations. In Table 20 the nationalities are arranged in
the order of their importance in the population of the city in 1900.
Only the first three groups maintained the same relative position among
the refugees.
[69] See Part I, p. 95.
TABLE 20.--NATIONALITY OF POPULATION OF SAN FRANCISCO IN 1900, COMPARED
WITH NATIONALITY OF HEADS OF FAMILIES AMONG REFUGEES IN 1906
=======================+===================+====================
Country of birth | POPULATION OF SAN | REFUGEES, 1906--
| FRANCISCO, 1900-- |HEADS OF FAMILIES OF
|INDIVIDUALS OF EACH| EACH SPECIFIED
| SPECIFIED NATIVITY| NATIVITY
+---------+---------+----------+---------
| Number | Per cent| Number |Per cent
-----------------------+---------+---------+----------+---------
United States | 225,897 | 66.0 | 6,229 | 41.7
Germany and Austria | 37,035 | 10.8 | 2,264 | 15.1
Ireland | 15,963 | 4.7 | 2,140 | 14.3
England and Scotland | 11,956 | 3.5 | 972 | 6.5
China | 10,762 | 3.1 | 20 | 0.1
Sweden, Norway, Denmark| 9,591 | 2.8 | 709 | 4.7
Italy | 7,508 | 2.2 | 1,208 | 8.1
Canada | 5,199 | 1.5 | 167 | 1.1
France | 4,870 | 1.4 | 400 | 2.7
Switzerland | 2,085 | 0.6 | 104 | 0.7
Japan | 1,852 | 0.5 | 31 | 0.2
Russia | 1,511 | 0.4 | 125 | 0.8
Mexico | 1,459 | 0.4 | 75 | 0.5
Australia | 1,096 | 0.3 | 24 | 0.2
Other countries | 5,998 | 1.8 | 495 | 3.3
-----------------------+---------+---------+----------+---------
Total | 342,782 | 100.0 |14,963[70]| 100.0
-----------------------+---------+---------+----------+---------
[70] Total number of families for whom the nationality of the head of
the family was given; in 4,475 cases this information was omitted.
TABLE 21.--NATIONALITY OF HEADS OF FAMILIES AMONG REFUGEES, BY CIVIL
SECTIONS, MAY, 1906. NUMBERS
====================+=========================================+======
Country of birth | NUMBER OF HEADS OF FAMILIES OF EACH | Total
| SPECIFIED NATIONALITY IN CIVIL SECTIONS |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII |
--------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------
United States |1,015| 354| 790|1,106| 736| 177|2,051| 6,229
Germany, Austria | 331| 85| 264| 413| 289| 158| 724| 2,264
Ireland | 234| 80| 228| 249| 432| 169| 748| 2,140
Italy | 66| 14| 698| 59| 90| 114| 167| 1,208
England and Scotland| 169| 48| 103| 133| 125| 61| 333| 972
Sweden, Norway, | | | | | | | |
and Denmark | 78| 39| 88| 51| 108| 113| 232| 709
France | 95| 11| 79| 46| 27| 31| 111| 400
Canada | 24| 9| 12| 31| 10| 6| 75| 167
Russia | 11| 10| 7| 28| 29| 6| 34| 125
Switzerland | 18| 2| 28| 9| 11| 8| 28| 104
Mexico | 24| ..| 42| 3| 3| 1| 2| 75
Japan | 6| ..| 11| 11| ..| ..| 3| 31
Australia | 3| 2| 3| 2| 6| 1| 7| 24
China | 3| 2| 9| 6| ..| ..| ..| 20
Other countries | 57| 15| 142| 105| 46| 56| 74| 495
--------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------
Total |2,134| 671|2,504|2,252|1,912| 901|4,589|14,963
Unknown | 456| 142| 593| 325| 308|1,975| 676| 4,475
--------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------
Grand total |2,590| 813|3,097|2,577|2,220|2,876|5,265|19,438
--------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------
TABLE 22.--NATIONALITY OF HEADS OF FAMILIES AMONG REFUGEES, BY CIVIL
SECTIONS, MAY, 1906. PERCENTAGES BASED ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES IN
WHICH INFORMATION AS TO NATIVITY WAS AVAILABLE
=================+=========================================+=====
Country of birth | PER CENT OF HEADS OF FAMILIES OF EACH |Total
| SPECIFIED NATIONALITY IN CIVIL SECTIONS |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII |
-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
United States | 47.5| 52.7| 31.6| 49.1| 38.6| 19.6| 44.6| 41.6
Germany, Austria | 15.5| 12.7| 10.5| 18.3| 15.1| 17.5| 15.8| 15.1
Ireland | 11.0| 11.9| 9.1| 11.1| 22.6| 18.8| 16.3| 14.3
Italy | 3.1| 2.1| 27.9| 2.6| 4.7| 12.7| 3.6| 8.1
England, Scotland| 7.9| 7.2| 4.1| 5.9| 6.5| 6.8| 7.3| 6.5
Sweden, Norway, | | | | | | | |
and Denmark | 3.7| 5.8| 3.5| 2.3| 5.6| 12.5| 5.1| 4.7
France | 4.5| 1.6| 3.2| 2.0| 1.4| 3.4| 2.4| 2.7
Other countries | 6.8| 6.0| 10.1| 8.7| 5.5| 8.7| 4.9| 7.0
-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
Total |100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0|100.0
-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
The distribution of nationalities varies somewhat in the different
sections. Sections III and VI have a considerably smaller proportion of
native born than the others. Italians are conspicuously prominent in
Section III and Irish in Section V. Germans and Austrians are relatively
most numerous in Sections IV and VI, and least numerous in Section III;
the proportion of Italian families is less than 5 per cent in all
sections except III and VI; the proportion of Irish varies from 9 per
cent in Section III to 23 per cent in Section V. In Section VI the
nationality of over two-thirds of the families was not given, and in
Section II, as has been explained, the registration was not
representative of the total body of refugees within its boundaries.
The number of persons registered as having been provided with shelter
was but a part of the whole. The estimated number of persons who were
living in shacks and barracks on June 1 was 40,000[71] according to the
census taken by General Greely; 42,000 according to the Southern Pacific
Railroad; 39,000 according to a computation made for this Relief
Survey.[72] Of this last number, 34,000 were in tents, 5,000 in barracks
and rough shacks. There was a slight increase in the camp population in
late May and in June, due to the return of refugees from Oakland and
other points, but apart from this accretion the camp population was
subject to slight variation.
[71] It must be borne in mind that the figures taken from the first
registration covered but a part of the camp and shack population.
[72] Computation made on the basis of the number of tents issued by
the army, the proportion of tents obtained from other sources and in
use at the end of June, and the average number of persons to the tent.
The first of June a San Franciscan wrote to _Charities and the
Commons_[73] an account of conditions, which gives a picture of what
life in the camps meant to some of the refugees:
“The courage and energy of the population of San Francisco in the face
not only of disaster but of extreme terror and sudden homelessness has
not been exaggerated, but to a great many the full effect of the
strain is not even yet apparent. The discomforts of living, in spite
of adequate relief, are very great. Wind and fog--for the weather has
been unusually cold for a month, dust unspeakable, cooking out of
doors in camps and streets, lack of water for toilet appliances, the
incessant boiling of water and milk for fear of fever, absence of
light and means of transportation for some time--in short, the total
uprooting of all the ordinary habits of life, is bearing more and more
heavily on the women and children. Schools are closed, thus turning
thousands of children literally into the ruined streets. It is now
proposed to have a vacation school in Golden Gate Park for the
children in camps there, but this is only a very small part of the
whole number.
“And for those who stay by the city much of this discomfort will go on
for several months to come. That under such circumstances men and
women become apathetic and lose pride and self-respect when they can
no longer endure the strain of petty hardships, is not surprising.
Archbishop Riordan, on his way to the scene of the disaster, is said
to have predicted, as the worst effect of it, the deterioration of
health and character which would be its inevitable result upon those
who are not of the exceptional stuff of which heroes and pioneers are
made.”
[73] Smith (Coolidge), Mary Roberts: Relief Work in its Social
Bearings. _Charities and the Commons_, XVI: 311 (June 2, 1906).
THE OFFICIAL CAMPS
The army had control of some camps from the beginning and gradually
assumed charge of others until 21[74] camps were under military
discipline. These camps became known by the rather misleading title of
“permanent camps.” The first to be brought under army control were four
situated in the Presidio, three in Golden Gate Park, one in Harbor View,
and one in Lobos Square.
[74] For complete list of official camps, dates of opening and
closing, and maximum population, see Appendix I, p. 404.
During May the Franklin Square camp, those at Fort Mason, and at 19th
and Minnesota Streets were taken over by the army. Early in June the
camps in Jefferson Square, Lafayette Square, Mission Park, Duboce Park,
Hamilton and Washington Squares were added, and in July, Alamo Square,
Precita Park, and Columbia Park. Each camp was in charge of a camp
commander, who according to the size of the camp, had on his staff
clerks, foremen, laborers, and a nurse for the hospital department.[75]
One or two of the larger camps had a camp carpenter. Plumbing and
carpentry for the smaller camps were done by mechanics from
headquarters.
[75] See Part I, pp. 90-91.
[Illustration: Tent camp, opened May 9, 1906
Cottages
CAMP NO. 9, LOBOS SQUARE]
During July and August the tents in the permanent camps were floored.
Buildings were put up in each camp containing latrines and wash and
bath-houses with hot and cold running water.
The unofficial camps, whose moral and sanitary condition was very
unsatisfactory, harbored a large number of refugees. As late as
September 1, 1906, their estimated population was from 10,000 to 15,000.
The Finance Committee had tried to have the campers move into the
official camps, but had failed because the police department, which was
the only authority that could eject, was unwilling to remove any large
number of persons. The police, of course, reflected the attitude of the
general public, which seems to have classed as official, though it was
not recognized as such by the Finance Committee, a large independent
camp, which was a private business venture, renting land to refugees on
which they might erect their own tents. General Greely, as has been
described,[76] had tried to induce removal to the official camps. The
importance of having all camp life under military discipline can be
readily appreciated when one considers how difficult under any auspices
it would be to give sanitary and moral protection to a large body of
persons living under abnormal conditions.
[76] See Part I, p. 44.
The three essentials for camp tenants laid down as rules by General
Greely were decency, order, and cleanliness. The camp commanders tried
to get rid of the disorderly element as far as they could without
causing hardship to others. When a person was ejected from one camp all
other camps were notified and he was not allowed to enter any of them.
The following statement of the number of ejectments from May, 1906, to
January, 1908, shows that there was constant attention to this problem.
The dashes which appear in the columns representing ejectments, opposite
June, 1906, and February and March, 1907, indicate that no ejectments
were reported for these months, though it is probable that ejectments
which were not reported occurred in the months mentioned and in the
months between January, 1908, and the close of the relief work.
TABLE 23.--EJECTMENTS FROM CAMPS DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE RELIEF
WORK, BY MONTHS
==============+==========
Month and year|Ejectments
--------------+----------
1906 May | 18
June | ..
July | 5
August | 108
September| 75
October | 43
November | 60
December | 35
1907 January | 15
February | ..
March | ..
April | 1
May | 26
June | 11
July | 27
August | 23
September| 10
October | 10
November | 5
December | 4
1908 January | 12
--------------+----------
Total ejectments
for period 488
-------------------------
Reasons for ejectments, as stated by the camp commanders, and the number
of ejectments for each reason or group of reasons, are shown in Table
24.
TABLE 24.--REASONS FOR EJECTMENTS FROM CAMPS DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF
THE RELIEF WORK
===============================================+==========
Reason for ejectment |Ejectments
-----------------------------------------------+----------
Drunkenness | 148
Drunken and disorderly conduct | 133
Disturbance of the peace and disorderly conduct| 74
Immorality | 14
Refusal to pay rent | 12
Refusal to work in camp | 10
Vagrancy | 9
Assault | 5
Stealing and burglary | 4
Miscellaneous reasons | 48
Reason not stated | 31
-----------------------------------------------+----------
Total | 488
-----------------------------------------------+----------
[Illustration: Where the first cottages were built, September, 1906
CAMP NO. 20, HAMILTON SQUARE]
Table 25 shows the total population of the official camps for each month
from May, 1906, to June, 1908, inclusive.
TABLE 25.--POPULATION OF OFFICIAL CAMPS, EXCLUSIVE OF INGLESIDE MODEL
CAMP, FROM MAY, 1906, TO JUNE, 1908, INCLUSIVE
(The figure given for each month is the maximum daily total)
==============+=========
Month and year| Persons
|sheltered
--------------+---------
1906 May | 13,170
June | 17,274
July | 17,959
August | 18,356
September| 18,305
October | 15,558
November | 13,969
December | 14,245
1907 January | 14,616
February | 15,149
March | 16,447
April | 17,223
May | 17,524
June | 17,592
July | 17,300
August | 15,785
September| 11,424
October | 8,916
November | 5,331
December | 3,367
1908 January | 1,760
February | 1,700
March | 1,392
April | 1,321
May | 1,230
June | 948
--------------+---------
Although the data available for determining the character of the camp
population are incomplete, from the weekly reports of the camp
commanders we can derive figures which probably represent a fair average
of the conditions. It appears that from September to December, 1906,
about 39 per cent of the persons sheltered were men, about 31 per cent
women, and about 30 per cent children. Approximately 55 per cent of the
members of the camp population were at work. The proportion of persons
who were at work was about 89 per cent among the men, about 39 per cent
among the women, and about 25 per cent among the children.
The large percentage of men who were working is worthy of notice. There
were numerous complaints during the existence of the camps that these
were harboring a large number of idle, shiftless men. Those who offered
such criticisms failed to take into account that there is even in normal
times a considerable percentage of unemployed men who spend much of
their time in public places. A part of the apparently well and
able-bodied were in reality incapable of much work, and others though
apparently unemployed were night workers. When the haunts of the idle
were covered with ashes, it is hardly strange that they should have
been found in numbers in the public parks and squares.
In Chapter 1 the story has been told of the need felt for making some
permanent provision for the refugees before the oncoming of the rainy
season. The Corporation, after making a careful study of the situation
in the camps, decided to adopt a separate cottage plan for temporary as
well as for permanent housing, except in one locality, South Park, whose
limited area gave no space for separate cottages.
On August 1, 1906, the care of the camps passed from the army to the
Department of Camps and Warehouses.[77] From then until June 30, 1908,
when the last camp was closed, that department had entire charge of
maintenance. The Department of Lands and Buildings was responsible for
the construction of the cottages built to replace the tents. The first
of August, 1906, the Corporation made public its plan to build
cottages[78] and let the contracts for the erection of buildings.
Building began September 10, and on the sixteenth 20 cottages in
Hamilton Square were completed. At least two or three months, however,
intervened before any considerable number of houses could be made ready
for the refugees. Before completing its work the Department of Lands and
Buildings had installed in the public squares for use in connection with
the 5,610 cottages which it had built, 667 patent flush closets, 247
hoppers, over six miles of gas and water pipe and over five miles of
sewer pipe; also the necessary fittings, which included 325 galvanized
sinks, with faucets and traps, and 624 gas brackets.[79]
[77] See Part I, p. 26.
[78] See Part IV, p. 217.
[79] See Part IV, p. 221.
Thus for the period of approximately six months those who had no
resources to build found house room as best they might. Many
difficulties were met by those who controlled the funds. Building had
had to be delayed because of the extraordinary amount of work involved
in supplying food, clothing, water, sanitary protection, and temporary
shelter. The pressure on the relief machinery seemed to tax its utmost
capacity. When it was necessary to push rebuilding plans, additional
machinery and more workers had to be provided.
In the official camps the refugees had in large measure been supplied
with tents free of charge. As the time came for the removal of tents and
temporary shacks and the substitution of wooden buildings, the question
was raised, who would be entitled to their use, and on what terms?
Cottages were assigned by the camp commanders, first, to those in the
official camps; second, to those in shacks and tents outside; third, to
those still in the city who were living in cellars and similar places,
including those who were receiving shelter from friends, and those who
were citizens but were living outside the city. Some who had not been
burned out, but needed to be better housed, received cottages and moved
them for permanent use to lots which they owned or leased.
For seven months the people had been furnished with tents free of
charge, but when the change was made to the wooden cottages, it was
thought best to charge a nominal rental.[80] The argument was that to
give everything and ask nothing in return, on the one hand killed the
self-respect of the efficient class and on the other gave opportunity to
the idle to shirk all civic and social responsibility; that the no-rent
policy had brought about serious economic disturbances, and its
continuance would prepare the way for yet more serious trouble.
[80] See Part IV, p. 222, for explanation of miscarriage of plan.
Finally, it was foreseen that the abnormal real estate conditions which
had made it possible for the homeless to secure shelter, would not be
relieved until those living in camp cottages should seek and be able to
secure quarters elsewhere. Accordingly, it was definitely decided that
as fast as buildings were made available in the camps, they should be
leased to refugees by camp commanders at nominal rates. A special form
of lease was provided which, theoretically, each applicant was compelled
to sign before occupying a cottage.
The San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Funds, a corporation, was the
lessor; and the refugee, the lessee. The lease was in effect a contract
of purchase, for it provided that the tenant should become the owner of
the cottage if he paid his rent to August 1, 1907. In general the
applicant agreed to pay a specified rent and gas rate per month, to
comply with all rules and regulations of the camp department and the
camp commanders. He agreed not to assign his lease to another nor sublet
without written consent. He agreed furthermore to vacate the house at
the expiration of his lease unless through full payment of all rents and
charges he had acquired ownership. In that event he agreed to remove the
house from the camp at his own expense before August, 1907. Failure to
remove meant to forfeit ownership. When on account of ill-health or
other disability a person was not able to pay rent, the camp commander
notified the Rehabilitation Committee.
The shelter furnished by the army and the Finance Committee was with few
exceptions on public land. When the Corporation was ready to build
cottages it asked the park commission for permission to use certain
parks and squares. The commission having no power to give the authority
agreed, on August 17, 1906, to ignore the occupation of parks and
squares, on the understanding that such use was for a period of not more
than one year; the cottages were then to be removed as rapidly as
possible.
The parks and squares were the most suitable places in which to give
temporary shelter. The damage and loss to the city from their use were
insignificant, and in the camps policing and sanitation were supplied.
There would have been rivalry among owners of land to secure the camps,
and consequent charges of favoritism, graft, etc. The parks and squares
were well situated with reference to the centers of industry and the
building operations. Throughout the work the park commissioners
co-operated with the Relief Corporation and rendered valuable
assistance. To have followed the suggestion of the committee on housing
the homeless to establish but one encampment, would have been very
unwise. In the summer following the disaster many persons were hindered
from becoming self-supporting because of their remoteness in Golden Gate
Park from centers of work.
The camp in South Park, already spoken of as unique in character,
consisted of nineteen two-story tenement buildings and a one-story
bath-house and laundry building. Some of the buildings were divided into
16 suites of two rooms each and the others into 12 tenements of two
rooms each. The total number of rooms was 656. The maximum population
was 648. They had adequate fire protection and the occupants were
required to take part regularly in a fire drill. There was steady demand
for the rooms, by reason of the nearness of the camp to the shipping and
manufacturing districts. The tenements were full almost all the time.
[Illustration: Where two-story tenements were built
CAMP NO. 28, SOUTH PARK]
REMOVAL FROM THE CAMPS
The terms of the contract signed by applicants fixed, in large measure,
the conditions under which cottages could be removed from the camps and
become the permanent property of their owners.[81] Whenever a person
proved to the Department that he had purchased or leased a lot in the
city and county of San Francisco, he was permitted at his own expense to
move his house.
[81] See Part IV, pp. 222 and 232.
In June, 1907, the park commissioners requested the Relief Corporation
to clear the public squares of cottages by August 17. Clearing the
squares and parks of these cottages proved to be a difficult task, for
many occupants sought delay on the ground of being unable to secure
other quarters. In a few cases the persons had either to be evicted or
to have the houses pulled down over their heads. On account of the
poverty of many occupants, and in order to secure better sanitary
supervision while the fear of bubonic plague lasted, the camp at Lobos
Square was retained after the others had been abandoned. It was used by
the poorest of the refugees from other camps, as well as by its own
unusual number of dependents. This camp was not entirely abandoned till
June 30, 1908.[82]
[82] For population of the camp April, 1908, see Part I, p. 29.
Cottages to the number of 5,343 were removed from the camps, all but a
few to be used as dwellings. Real estate firms which applied to purchase
cottages to establish them in groups on their own lots were refused by
the Department on the ground that any such arrangement would tend to
perpetuate camp life; lacking superintendence and control, such camp
life would be worse than that which then existed. Despite the action of
the Department, however, large vacant lots were sub-divided and rented
to individual owners of cottages.[83] Seventy-four of the cottages were
given to philanthropic agencies and were installed by them in various
parts of the city for use as club rooms or for similar purposes.
[83] See Two Cottage Settlements, Part IV, p. 234 ff.
The work of the Associated Charities in moving and repairing cottages
deserves special mention. The Corporation arranged with the Associated
Charities to move from the camps the cottages belonging to widows with
children and to families having incapacitated breadwinners. The moving
of cottages, which began in July, 1907, was not ended until the latter
part of June, 1908.[84] The amount of work accomplished at a cost
comparatively small shows excellent business management. The greater
part of the work of moving, installing, and repairing the cottages was
done by unemployed carpenters, plumbers, and laborers. “Considering the
number of cottages moved and made habitable, we have had very few
complaints as to the workmanship,” is noted in a report of the
Associated Charities,--a comment that could not be made in connection
with many houses erected by the regular contractors.
[84] The total number of cottages moved or repaired by the Associated
Charities was 703, at an expenditure of $55,963.50 or an average of
$79.61 per cottage. The appropriation for this work allowed for a
maximum expenditure of $150 per cottage.
The efforts being made by families permanently to own homes are shown by
the following figures: The number of cottagers buying lots was 208;
paying ground rent, 447; owning own property, 30; given one month’s rent
to move from camp but present condition unknown, 18. Total, 703.
Under the supervision of the Associated Charities the 208 families
buying lots bid fair, according to reports given in 1908, to own them in
the immediate future. It is doubtless true that but for the direction of
the society these families never would have seriously considered owning
a house and lot.
From August 1, 1906, to June 30, 1908, there is accurate information
from which to determine the cost of the camps. During this period
7,171,522 days’ shelter was furnished at a cost of $884,558.81 for
construction of cottages and of $453,000.04 for maintenance, a total of
$1,337,558.85, a daily per capita cost of 18.7 cents. The daily per
capita cost of maintenance was 6 cents. No allowance is here made for
the value of the tents in use from August 1 till they were replaced by
the cottages, but their value is more than offset by that of the
cottages when they were vacated.[85]
[85] For total expenditures of all departments for housing, see Table
64, p. 220.
For the whole period of the relief work, the cost of the camps was as
follows:
TABLE 26.--COST OF CAMPS DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE RELIEF WORK
Value of shelter furnished by the army as reported by
General Greely $421,195.08
Paid by Finance Committee for shelter up to August 1,
1906 187,056.56
Paid for sanitation of camps and city up to August 1,
1906 155,473.60
Cost of building camp cottages and tenements after
August 1, 1906 884,558.81
Paid by Department of Camps and Warehouses, for
maintenance after August 1, 1906 453,000.04
-----------
Total $2,101,284.09
In addition to the shelter furnished at Ingleside and the Relief Home,
an estimate of 11,000,000[86] days of shelter for the entire relief
period may be given, a figure that is probably too small. From it we get
an average daily per capita cost of 19.1 cents.
[86] Estimated number of days of shelter from April 18, 1906, to
August 1, 1906, 3,828,478.
The apparently greater cost of shelter for the early period is due
possibly to too low an estimate of the number of days’ shelter furnished
outside of official camps. It must be kept in mind that the
disbursements given above include all disbursements for sanitation and
for medical care in the camps, and also that the residents of the camps
included a large proportion of aged, infirm, and dependent persons. The
actual cost would be reduced if it were possible to deduct the value of
the tents and cottages at the time they ceased to be used.
What is astounding in this story of giving shelter to a great displaced
city population of 250,000[87] souls is not the number of days that
shelter had to be provided or the sum total of cost. The astounding fact
is that when Camp Lobos, the last stamping ground of the residuum,[88]
was closed to refugees on June 30, 1908, the number of persons that had
to be cared for by the Associated Charities and the Relief Home was so
small. In June, 1906, 40,000 persons were living at the expense of the
relief funds in camps and shacks; two years later, leaving out of
consideration those who had been given shelter at Ingleside, only 703
had to be aided by charitable agency to obtain permanent shelter.
[87] 200,000 is the number given for persons burned out of house and
home. The difference is accounted for by the number made homeless
because of loss of income and because of the homes made temporarily
uninhabitable by the earthquake.
[88] See Part VI, p. 357, and Part V, p. 305 ff., for number that had
to be taken care of permanently. The small number who left the
almshouse to seek shelter in the camps is also noted in Part VI.
This section may well be closed by a brief and necessarily inadequate
statement of the social work undertaken in connection with the camp
life. Four important settlements were swept to ashes by the fire,--the
South Park Settlement, a pioneer work in San Francisco, the Telegraph
Hill Neighborhood Association, the Nurses’ Settlement, and the Columbia
Park Boys’ Club. The residents of each showed, as did the Associated
Charities, their power of readjusting their work to meet the new demands
for service. They transferred their activity to the camps where they, as
well as groups of other volunteers, tried to improve social conditions.
Various organizations of women co-operated also to help carry on the
work of the sewing center at the Hearst Grammar School, which was
established the middle of May by the representative of the American
National Red Cross, in connection with its employment bureau. Here
volunteers met and distributed garments and taught women and girls to
sew, giving materials to some in exchange for their work on garments,
which were distributed to other refugees. The work grew so that sewing
circles were opened in various camps and other suitable places, which
furnished proper clothing and gave employment and instruction to women
and girls. By July, 1907, over 75,000 garments had been made in the 75
centers that had been established in camps, churches, public schools,
and settlements. The work itself had been brought under the Corporation
as a part of its Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, and had been
given the name of Industrial Bureau, with Lucile Eaves as director, Rev.
D. O. Crowley as adviser, and six seamstresses on salary. Miss Eaves,
formerly head worker of the South Park Settlement, had been in charge of
the sewing circles before the incorporation of the San Francisco Relief
and Red Cross Funds. There is no account of expenditures made for this
work to August 1, 1906. After that date the Corporation expended
$37,895.70. The two largest items of expenditure were $28,521.09 for dry
goods and other supplies and $4,464 for service.
Temporary social halls were built at the expense of the Corporation to
be used by residents of the camps as meeting places and by social
workers for kindergartens, day nurseries, reading rooms, sewing classes,
and improvement clubs, for religious meetings, for lectures, and for
concerts.
The story of the quick recovery of the settlements themselves and of
how, awaiting the building of new quarters, they by makeshifts got the
people together, cannot be told here. To show in a measure what it meant
to the social worker to find himself suddenly bereft of all the means to
serve his end, the following paragraphs written by a probation officer
are given:
“On the morning of April 20, practically every vestige of the three
years’ work of the juvenile court had vanished.
“Our office was cleaned out; little piles of delicate white ash
represented our records, compiled with such care and toil. Where the
detention home stood was a heap of tangled scrap iron. Three out of
five of our officers were homeless. Our probationers were scattered to
the four winds of heaven. Fortunately, none of the children in
detention was injured; during the first day of the fire they were
safely conveyed to a sand-dump camp at the western edge of the city.”
6. SAFEGUARDING HEALTH
Sanitation was at once recognized to be a pressing problem. As has been
told, latrines were quickly built in the camps and in other parts of the
city, and a large force of plumbers was kept at work to repair leaks in
sewers so as to prevent the seepage of sewage into the water supply.
Citizens were ordered to boil all drinking water and the authorities
took charge of all milk as soon as it was delivered to the city.
Sanitary orders were cheerfully obeyed. “Obey the Sanitary Law or be
shot” tacked on a partially wrecked house showed that some of the
refugees held to a pioneer code. That they did so, and that the
authorities were alert, the excellent health record of the months that
followed bears testimony. The sanitary problem was to a small degree
lessened by the fact that with the terror of the earthquake and fire in
their eyes, the vicious and parasitic classes fled from the city; to a
large degree by the fact that nature was kind in giving conditions that
were peculiarly favorable to life in the open.
To put emphasis on sanitation was an essential. Colonel G. H.
Torney,[89] of the army medical department, was placed in charge of all
sanitary work, both of the camps and of the city. By April 28 a medical
officer had been assigned to each of the six military districts.[90]
This officer assigned inspectors to make daily inspections of the camps
in his district, to keep a close watch for infectious diseases, and to
see that there was a large force of scavengers. The expense of the work
was borne by the army and was drawn from the Congressional
appropriation.
[89] Later appointed Surgeon General of the United States Army.
[90] See Part I, p. 11.
Because of the army’s efficiency during the first few weeks there was no
serious outbreak of disease, though there was for a short time a fear
that smallpox might become epidemic. As long, however, as the city
authorities permitted groups of people to live in isolated camps proper
sanitary supervision was impossible. The greatest danger was from the
flies and from the use of water drawn in the early days from wells and
other unusual sources of supply. As soon as possible sterilizers were
installed in the camps and weekly tests made of the water used in each.
Early in May a physician named by the city authorities was stationed at
each district headquarters to have charge of all health regulations and
to be subject to the orders of Colonel Torney.
The services of the army officers were retained to make reports on
conditions until the middle of May, when the division into sanitary
districts was abandoned and Colonel Torney’s duties were changed so that
he might become chief sanitary officer of permanent camps under General
Greely, the division commander. An army medical officer was then
assigned to each official camp. He was responsible for the sanitation of
his camp, but not for territories beyond its boundaries. He could be
called upon to advise the civil authorities who were responsible for the
final removal of all camp garbage and refuse after it had been taken
from the camps designated to places outside camp limits.
The board of health, acting under orders of the Executive Commission,
appointed a health corps which was paid by the Finance Committee of
Relief and Red Cross Funds and subject to the direction of the camp
commander. The personnel of the corps under the board of health in each
camp consisted, varying according to the camp population, of one to two
surgeons, one to four nurses, a pharmacist, and from two to ten
laborers. There were for service at large one surgeon, two dentists, two
sanitary inspectors, one pharmacist, six laborers, and two chauffeurs.
The total number in the corps was: surgeons, 24; nurses, 26; dentists,
2; laborers, 89; inspectors, 2; pharmacists, 15; chauffeurs, 2.
Taking into account the character of the camp population, a considerable
part of which was of the class that does not understand the need of
sanitary precautions, the freedom from epidemic during the first few
months is remarkable. A report of the medical department of the army
shows that 30 cases of typhoid fever occurred in April, 55 in May, and
10 up to June 23, 1906. As the average number of cases per month
reported by the city to the state board of health for the two years
previous to the fire was only 12, there is apparently an increase of
this disease during April and May. The 30 cases which developed in April
must have been due to infection previous to April 18, so that unless the
statistics of either the army or the city board of health are incorrect,
an increase of this disease must have threatened before the fire. Of the
95 cases which developed between April 18 and June 23 only five
developed in official camps. Of smallpox there were 123 cases between
April 18 and June 23. Five of these were reported by the board of health
as camp cases, but none of them originated in official camps under army
control.
In October and November, 1906, there was a decided increase in the
number of cases of typhoid fever, the bureau of hospitals alone having
charge at one time of 155 cases. The patients came from camps, official
and unofficial, and from houses. The epidemic, if it can be called such,
was found to be carried not by contaminated milk or water but by flies.
The sanitation methods of the board of health had not been good enough
to protect the refugees in the various camps. The board of health,
therefore, not the Department of Camps and Warehouses, was responsible
for the number of typhoid fever cases.
The care of the sick was a minor problem of the relief work. The number
of persons seriously injured by the fire and earthquake was but 415.
Most of the hospitals stood outside the burned section, and though some
of them suffered heavy damage by the earthquake, no demand had to be
made for hospital facilities that could not be met fairly adequately.
Some of the sick were immediately cared for in neighboring communities,
and by the army in its hospitals at the Presidio and at Fort Mason, and
in a field hospital established in Golden Gate Park.[91] At one time
during the summer following the disaster many of the city hospital beds
were vacant, even though numerous chronic cases became hospital charges
when relatives and friends were no longer financially able to provide
for them.
[91] The establishment of a field hospital in Golden Gate Park is a
good instance of the great care that was taken to be prepared for
whatever emergency might arise.
The physicians and nurses who came immediately after the disaster to San
Francisco to offer their services could not be utilized, as the demand
for medical and nursing service was not greater than could be supplied
by local physicians and nurses. A party of fourteen nurses that came
from Seattle soon after the disaster reported for duty at five o’clock
one afternoon. “Have you return transportation?” asked the chairman of
the committee that received them. “Yes,” was the answer. “Well, there is
a train which starts for Seattle tomorrow morning at nine o’clock,” was
the laconic order.
In this incident we see the need of a clearing house of information to
be established as one of the very first agencies in a large work of
relief. It would in this case have prevented the sending of unnecessary
nurses and physicians and would have saved expense. More important,
however, would have been its service in standardizing the methods of
record keeping and in preventing overlapping of work of the various
departments.[92]
[92] See Some Lessons of the Relief Survey, p. 369 ff.
There was immediate need of medical supplies to replace the stock
destroyed by fire. But the sub-committees on drugs and medical supplies
and on care of the sick and wounded, appointed by the Citizens’
Committee, could find little to do in those early days after the
disaster, as the army practically took charge of the distribution of the
medical supplies and was using the California Red Cross as its agent.
This branch of the Red Cross not only cared for some of the sick
directly, but did much more important work in collecting information as
to the needs of the sick and as to the condition of the hospitals
throughout the city.
The Finance Committee, acting early in May on the advice of Colonel
Torney, established 26 free dispensaries which were supplied by the army
with drugs and other medical supplies. It was careful not to compete
with retail trade, so closed any dispensary near which a retail drug
store was later opened. The Finance Committee also appointed early in
May a committee on hospitals and authorized it to make payments to
designated hospitals for the care of destitute patients. The hospitals
which were to receive payments from the relief funds were at first named
by the board of health, later by the Finance Committee itself, which
made selection of six hospitals. An executive officer, a physician, was
appointed to pass on the eligibility of the patients who applied for
free care and to determine the time of discharge of each from the
hospital.
In July this executive officer, whose title was that of supervisor of
accredited hospitals, served under direction of the Executive
Commission; but after August 1 he was subject to the Corporation, an
arrangement which held until July 1, 1908, when the Bureau of Hospitals
of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation was closed. The
Associated Charities was then given authority by the Corporation to send
destitute patients directly to the hospitals. The Corporation reimbursed
the hospitals for care given. The hospitals selected to receive patients
whose care was paid for from the funds were changed from time to time.
The value of the compensation to hospitals was at first equivalent to
$13 or $14 a week for each patient. On July 18 the Executive Commission
had fixed the maximum rate of $2.00 per day without supplies. This was
to cover cost of operations and attendance. It had remained in force
until the Bureau of Hospitals was closed.
The Bureau’s records, which are inadequate in some respects, show that
the highest number of hospital cases for one week, 276, was reached
during the period of the typhoid epidemic. Later reports show an average
of about 212 patients per week from August, 1906, to September, 1907. Of
the patients sent to hospitals through the Bureau 10 per cent were
children, 35 per cent men, and 55 per cent women.
The financial report of the Corporation shows that the total cost for
the care of the sick to May 29, 1909, was $344,165.07. In addition,
food, medical supplies, and furnishings were given to hospitals to the
value of $97,670.16. Of the $344,165.07, there was expended previous to
August 1, 1906, $107,396.43. The sum of $278,070.76 was paid directly to
hospitals for the care of patients, on presentation of vouchers, while
the balance of $66,094.31, though not paid directly to the hospitals,
was expended in various ways for the benefit of the hospital patients.
Between August 1, 1906, and June 1, 1909, $231,110.46 was paid directly
to hospitals for the care of patients. This latter sum, less $1,960.25
which cannot be distributed, represents 134,373 days of hospital care at
an average cost of $1.71 per patient per day. The average rates of the
different hospitals varied from $1.07 to $2.00.
Although the rates paid by the relief funds were often less than the
actual cost to the hospitals of caring for patients in normal times, it
was to the advantage of the hospitals to care for the sick, many of whom
they would have had to take in any case. The volume of business helped
to lower the per capita cost of maintenance. It was also an incentive to
the directors to increase their facilities and to private benefactors to
give money toward their support.
7. RELIEVING THE JAPANESE AND CHINESE
The Japanese asked for very little relief, in part because many had
difficulty in speaking English, but more generally because all were
aware of the anti-Japanese feeling of a small but aggressive part of the
community; this in spite of the fact that Japan contributed directly to
the local committee and through the American National Red Cross nearly a
quarter of a million dollars.
On April 20, independent relief associations were formed by Japanese
residents in San Francisco and Oakland, but on the same day they wisely
united under the name Japanese Relief Association to care for
practically all their fellow countrymen.
[Illustration: TANKS FOR STERILIZING WATER, LOBOS SQUARE CAMP]
The Japanese Relief Association estimated the number of their countrymen
made destitute by the fire to be over 10,000, which is about 3 per cent
of the total number of persons made dependent for short or long periods
of time. On July 6, 1906, not over 100 Japanese were receiving
assistance from the Relief and Red Cross Funds. Of these about 50
were receiving shelter only, in Lafayette Square, and 50 were receiving
help at relief stations. That is, the Japanese constituted not more than
one-half of 1 per cent of the bread line and about a quarter of 1 per
cent of the population of the official camps. Even at the beginning the
number receiving help from the Relief and Red Cross Funds was probably
not much greater. The Relief Survey estimates that the total value of
relief of all kinds furnished by the army and the Finance Committee to
Japanese did not exceed $3,000. Among the 30,000 or more persons who
applied for rehabilitation, there was not one Japanese. Their own relief
association, assisted by Japanese throughout the state, within ten days
after the disaster sent between 7,000 and 8,000 of them to places
outside of San Francisco. On July 6 some of these had returned and the
number of Japanese refugees then in the city was estimated by the
association to be 4,000, two hundred of whom it was supplying with
provisions.
China contributed $40,000 to the San Francisco Relief and Red Cross
Funds for the general work of relief.
There is not much information available about the Chinese. They probably
received altogether more food than the Japanese and they certainly
received more in the way of shelter, yet the total value of all aid
given them was relatively insignificant. Like the Japanese, and for the
same reasons, they did not ask for much. At the beginning a separate
camp was established for them,--Number 3, in the Presidio reservation.
The population of this camp on May 8, 1906, was 186. Later, when
cottages were built in Portsmouth Square, on the border of Chinatown, 37
out of the 153 cottages were assigned to Chinese. Not over 140
applications for rehabilitation were made by Chinese. About half of the
number were assisted at an average expenditure of about $70. Nearly all
these cases were brought to the notice of the Committee by social
workers, as only a few Chinese applied voluntarily for relief. Ten
thousand dollars is a liberal estimate of the value of relief given to
the Chinese.
III
QUESTIONS OF FINANCE
1. CLAIMS
The word “claim” as used in the relief accounting was applied to
anything from a time check for a day’s work to a ten thousand dollar
demand for goods seized, a usage that arose from the fact that for the
first few days, when there was no available cash, many obligations were
incurred that were a proper charge on the relief funds though not
authorized by the Finance Committee.
Some claims were made by those who suffered a change of sentiment toward
contributing relief. During the hours of urgent need men donated their
goods, workmen gave their labor, and professional men, their services,
who when later they saw the size of the relief funds could not resist
the insidious craving to have a share of the big whole. There is the
instance of men belonging to one of the building trades who did work for
which they expected no pay but later were not satisfied to take the
$4.00 a day offered as payment by the Finance Committee. They demanded
$6.00 because other men were receiving that amount for a day’s work.
Business houses within and without the city evinced the same spirit.
Day by day the flood of claims swelled. Claimants and their attorneys
laid siege to the Finance Committee and tried by bribes and threats of
lawsuits to collect their claims. A large force of clerks and a special
committee were kept hard at work trying to learn the merits of the
claims. The Finance Committee itself day after day was compelled,
instead of discussing necessary relief measures, to give the greater
part of its sessions to the hearing or to the discussion of these
claims.[93]
[93] See Sixth Annual Report American National Red Cross, 1910, p.
160.
The circumstances of seizure had varied. Often when the fire was almost
upon a store somebody would assume authority and break it open to give
the stock to the people. In such a case the stock would have been
destroyed by fire and there was no justice in the claim for seizure
except where the owner as a consequence lost insurance. Irresponsible
individuals who had no connection with relief committees had seized
goods and impressed vehicles. Those who suffered loss through such
lawless acts were unfortunate, but they had no real claim to
reimbursement from the relief funds.
The same may be said of the individuals, the business houses, and the
transportation companies whose goods were stolen, not seized, from
freight cars and warehouses. Many claims for regrettable losses which
might have been legitimate if brought against state, city, or person,
were unjust when brought against the relief funds. Fraudulent attempts
were also made to collect from the relief funds for losses that had no
connection with the relief work and for losses that had never occurred.
It was a perplexing problem to deal with these thousands of claims, the
difficulties of which were increased by the insistence of those with the
least valid claims.
The last report of the Department of Bills and Demands dated March 16,
1907, gives the following figures:
TABLE 27.--DISPOSAL OF CLAIMS ACTED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENT OF BILLS AND
DEMANDS, TO MARCH 16, 1907
===================================+======================
Disposal of claims | CLAIMS PRESENTED
+-------+--------------
| Number|Amount claimed
-----------------------------------+-------+--------------
Claims rejected as a whole | 1,164 | $451,369.59
Claims cancelled, withdrawn, etc. | 101 | 13,269.54
Claims donated | 18 | 10,528.20
Claims approved in whole or in part| 9,669 | 2,242,003.00
-----------------------------------+-------+--------------
Total |10,952 | $2,717,170.33
-----------------------------------+-------+--------------
TABLE 28.--PAYMENTS UPON CLAIMS ACTED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENT OF BILLS
AND DEMANDS, TO MARCH 16, 1907
==================+====================+=======================
Disposal of claims| CLAIMS PRESENTED | PAYMENTS MADE
+------+-------------+-------------+---------
|Number| Amount | Amount |Per cent
| | claimed | |of amount
| | | | claimed
------------------+------+-------------+-------------+---------
Claims approved in| | | |
whole or in part | 9,669|$2,242,003.00|$1,501,781.52| 67.0
All claims |10,952| 2,717,170.33| 1,501,781.52| 55.3
------------------+------+-------------+-------------+---------
After March 16, 1907, a few long pending and new claims were paid. Some
law suits had been settled, and a few were still pending against the
Corporation when this report was prepared.
It thus appears that the trustees of the relief funds paid over a
million and a half dollars for expenditures, many of which they had not
authorized and were unable to control. They tried to pay only such part
of the claims as represented supplies and service used in relief work.
Just claims were cut down as a rule, so that a comparatively small
number of claims were paid in full.
In deciding the merits of claims the supervising and judicial committees
appointed sub-committees of experienced men to supplement their own
technical knowledge. Many claims for liquor destroyed by soldiers and
citizens were presented, but the Finance Committee decided to pay no
liquor claims. The enormous disbursements for automobile service and for
transportation of supplies were made chiefly in payment of emergency
claims. Claims of various sorts were paid by the War Department out of
the Congressional appropriation of $2,500,000. Other claims were paid by
the state. As the Relief Corporation could get no information about such
claims it is possible that there were duplicate payments.
2. SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING--A NOTE
The accounting system of the Relief and Red Cross Funds has been
criticized because it did not readily yield information as to the
amounts expended for various purposes, and because it was complicated.
The first seems a fair criticism, for contributors to funds and the
public in general are more interested in the cost of various forms of
relief than in the state of the appropriations. The system of
appropriations to the departments for different purposes was based on
carefully prepared budgets. It was good for controlling expenditures and
for keeping a check on departments and bureaus. For those not directly
connected with the work, additional information in simple form might
easily have been given. The intricacy of the accounting, however, seems
justified by the results. It was devised to make the handling of the
money as secure as possible. So far as the local auditors and the
auditor of the War Department have been able to discover there was only
one transaction that looked like misappropriation of money. About $1,000
received by a camp employe from certain authorized sales was for a short
time kept back. The apparent shortage, easily detected by the accounting
department, was made good.
Considering the extraordinary conditions under which the work was
organized, such a showing is remarkable. When men undertake the
thankless task of handling a large relief fund, if they have a keen
sense of responsibility and a realization of the difficulties ahead they
will wish to disburse the fund through a system which is as safe as
possible. It is worth while for them not only to prevent
misappropriation but even the appearance of it. The employes of such a
committee will find satisfaction, when accused of graft and
stealing,--an accusation suffered many times by the San Francisco
workers,--in showing their accusers just how the money is guarded and
that it is impossible for them to steal. A system that insures such
security is worth the extra cost.
3. THE CONTROL OF DONATIONS
As a result, primarily, of the publication of sensational stories in the
press of the country, the plans of the Corporation were at times
seriously embarrassed by the withholding of funds by eastern committees
and by the possible danger of those funds being dispensed by independent
agencies.
The studies in rehabilitation show that the suspension of grants on
August 20, 1906, the period of arrested progress, had a serious effect
upon the rehabilitation work. It caused a change of relief policy so
that families given grants in one period were treated differently from
those in another. It meant for many families a long wait from August 20
to the middle of October when the embargo was lifted. The Corporation
had worked out a wise, comprehensive program on the basis of estimated
income and then suddenly had to question whether the income might not be
$3,000,000 less. Inevitably every department suffered from uncertainty
and hesitation. The results of such an intolerable condition were more
clearly perceived in rehabilitation than in the other work, but what the
withholding of funds meant in reduced efficiency would be hard to
estimate.
The two most important funds, those of Massachusetts and the New York
Chamber of Commerce,[94] were eventually transferred, the latter with
the restriction that it be used for business rehabilitation. Only a
number of small funds were permanently held, but the harm was done. The
warning should be heeded in future disasters. It is possible for a
relief committee, when its work is hardest, to be tied up because of a
few newspaper stories which may or may not have foundation in fact.
[94] Action of the New York Chamber of Commerce taken October 2, 1906,
and transmitted in the form of a resolution to the San Francisco
Relief and Red Cross Funds.--The resolution provided for the transfer
of $500,000 to the Corporation “to be devoted by said Corporation for
the purposes and uses of making grants of money or its equivalent, to
individual sufferers from the disaster for purposes of rehabilitation,
in such sums and by such methods as its Rehabilitation Committee may
approve; and that no part of it should be used for the payment of any
pending claims or obligations incurred prior to such transfer of
funds, or for the maintenance of camps, or for ordinary emergent
relief, or for the erection of barracks or cottages, or for the
maintenance of persons therein, it being assumed that the contribution
already made from this fund ($267,500) and the sum subscribed in other
ways will enable the Corporation to accomplish these necessary and
worthy objects.”
The investigator sent by the Massachusetts committee because of the
newspaper stories, after investigation cordially endorsed the work of
the Relief Corporation and made but few criticisms.
What is the remedy? It cannot be too plainly stated that there must be
only one relief committee or corporation.[95] There must be no division
of responsibility for distribution. If there must be reform it must be
within the relief corporation itself. If one of the eastern committees
in command of large funds had set up its own agency in San Francisco,
it would have been guilty of improper trusteeship. That much is evident.
The suggestion has been made that the committees in charge of the larger
funds should each have had a representative on the Finance Committee.
Mr. Bicknell, for instance, came first to San Francisco as the
representative of the Chicago Commercial Association and the Mayor’s
committee funds. But such representation would not include the smaller
fund committees. A more inclusive plan is desirable. The gradual
strengthening of the American National Red Cross seems to point the way.
The Red Cross should become so fully recognized as the national agency
for all disaster funds that it should eventually, in any given case,
receive all funds not sent directly to a local committee. Its relation
to local committees will be strengthened and it can be relied upon to
suggest and whenever necessary push changes in relief measures. In San
Francisco and each subsequent disaster of any proportions, the American
National Red Cross has been represented by its expert agents. Its
strength has been materially increased by the appointment of a permanent
director. The withholding of funds once subscribed for a particular
disaster should become an impossibility as the status of the national
agent is recognized.
[95] See Sixth Annual Report American National Red Cross, 1910, p.
156. See also section on The Incorporation of the Funds, Part I, p. 25
ff. of this volume.
We have alluded to one form of restriction, that of requiring that a
specified fund be used for a specified form of rehabilitation. Such
restriction must of course be accepted after an effort has been made,
and has failed, to persuade the forwarding committee to lift the
restriction. But restrictions upon relief in kind are doubly dangerous
and ill-advised. In the San Francisco disaster the “flour” episode gives
an apt illustration. Certain forms of food were donated in quantities in
excess of the needs. These were flour, potatoes, and condensed milk, all
three of them valuable forms of food in an emergency. The potatoes, as
it was the end of the season, did not keep well in large masses and the
refugees, living in tents or in basements or attics, had little room for
storage. Besides, the universal practice in San Francisco and the
vicinity where fresh vegetables can be bought the year round, is to buy
in small quantities from day to day or week to week and not store in the
fall for winter use. The Finance Committee, unable to dispose of the
potatoes to refugees, decided to sell the surplus stock. The sale does
not appear to have been made, perhaps because they were unsaleable. At
any rate large quantities spoiled and had to be thrown away.
It was natural to think that condensed and evaporated milk would be
necessities of prime importance. They were valuable, but on account of
local conditions were not needed in great quantities. The supply of milk
from the ranches outside the city was not much diminished by the
earthquake. By confiscation and by arrangement with dealers an abundant
supply of fresh milk was secured for distribution to the refugees.
Many committees throughout the country sent flour as the most useful
form of food. It came so fast that for lack of warehouses in which to
store it (practically all city warehouses having been burned) part of it
was put aboard three transports and in the army warehouses, and finally
a vast quantity was stacked up in the open air. The transports were not
adapted to preserving flour in good condition so they could not long be
used as storehouses. The Finance Committee, confronted by the problem of
finding storage for the vast supply received, and knowing that it was
several times as much as could be reasonably distributed, decided on May
17 to sell 4,000,000 pounds. This was vigorously objected to by the
Minneapolis committee which had sent 15 per cent of the 16,000,000
pounds received. It insisted that its flour should be distributed,--the
very flour sent, not flour purchased later with cash from the sale of
Minneapolis flour. This episode led to newspaper publicity and protests.
The lesson is, that restrictions upon relief in kind are unsatisfactory
and embarrassing and should always be placed upon a discretionary basis.
The Minneapolis committee claimed that title to its flour had been
transferred to the destitute of San Francisco, not to the Red Cross or
to the Finance Committee, who were apparently to be considered solely as
the servants of distribution. The position is an impossible one in which
to place a self-respecting committee.
Many donors of money gave specific directions as to the use to which
they wished it put. There was the man who sent $1.00 with a request to
hand it to some worthy sufferer and let him report to the donor; and
there was the refugee who, after he had found employment elsewhere,
sent a small sum, more than enough to pay for the three days’ rations he
had received in the bread line, with the request that the balance be
given to a soldier who had been kind to him. Jewelers sent money for
jewelers, artists for artists, teachers for teachers, physicians for
physicians, the people of one town for their fellow townsmen in San
Francisco.
Money was also sent to individuals connected with the relief funds to be
applied to specific purposes. Fortunately, there were enough
unrestricted funds available to assist all classes and carry out the
intent of all donors. It was not necessary to open a special account for
each of these trusts.
No actual restriction as to the purpose of expenditure, imposed either
by donors directly or by the custodians of large funds, was in itself
onerous to the relief authorities, but the circumstances attendant upon
the remittance of restricted funds caused more or less embarrassment
during nearly the whole period of the relief work.
PART II
REHABILITATION
PART II
REHABILITATION
PAGE
I. BEGINNINGS OF REHABILITATION 107
1. General Policy 107
2. Periods of Rehabilitation Work 111
II. METHODS OF WORK 113
1. The District System 113
2. The Centralized System 124
3. Withdrawal 133
4. Concluding Remarks 135
III. CALLS FOR SPECIAL FORMS OF SERVICE 137
1. Relations with Auxiliary Societies 137
2. Rehabilitation of Institutions 141
3. Bureau of Special Relief 145
IV. WHAT THE REHABILITATION RECORDS SHOW 151
1. Introductory 151
2. Social Data and Total Grants and Refusals 152
3. Principal and Subsidiary Grants 157
4. The Re-opening of Cases to Make Further Grants 160
5. Variations in Amounts of Grants, and Refusals 165
I
BEGINNINGS OF REHABILITATION
1. GENERAL POLICY
In the beginning of the Relief Survey it has been shown how, with what
seemed to be an instinctive insistence, the trend of the work was toward
the formulation of a definite rehabilitation policy. The principle, one
might say axiom, which determined the character of this policy was that
help should be extended with reference to needs and not with reference
to losses. It was not easy to hold to the relief principle in the face
of a sentiment by no means weak nor voiceless that each sufferer was
entitled to an equal share of the funds. That the Rehabilitation
Committee did consistently act on this principle during the periods of
its activity was a marked achievement--an achievement that may be
counted to the good, not only for the relief of San Francisco sufferers
but for sufferers from subsequent disasters.
When the Rehabilitation Committee began its work at the beginning of
July, 1906,[96] it could not know what amount of money would be
available for the purposes of its work. It knew that $1,500,000 had been
suggested as the amount and 15,000 as the number of families to be
rehabilitated. It held many conferences to consider the possibility of
obtaining even the roughest sort of census of the families who would
require assistance.
[96] See Part I, p. 21.
No solution was furnished by the population of the various camps because
even if their total population had been known, it would not have given a
clue to the number of families who were living with relatives or friends
or as tenants in the overcrowded quarters. Unlike the ordinary relief
society, the Committee could not estimate the total actual needs of its
prospective applicants. Therefore it had to fix definite limitations
for grants[97] to those who first applied so that later applicants, with
needs equally great, might not suffer injustice.
[97] A classification of grants was in use which had been adopted by
the Red Cross Special Bureau. The headings of this classification were
“Tools,” “Household Re-establishment,” “Business Enterprise,” “Special
Relief,” “Transportation.” Special Relief was used to describe a
miscellaneous group of grants, and to prevent its being confused with
the later Bureau of Special Relief (see Part II, p. 145), it will
hereafter in this study be designated “General Relief.”
With these considerations in mind the Committee at its first meeting
moved to limit the vast bulk of grants to sums of $500 or less. The
decision was that a grant that did not exceed $200 could be approved by
one member of the Committee, that grants of from $200 to $500 should
require the signatures of two members, and that grants of more than $500
should require the action of the entire Committee. During the first few
months the number of separate grants of $500 or over, exclusive of
housing grants, was but 121, the general assumption in the Committee
room and among the rehabilitation workers being that the number of
families to receive over $500 should be small.
Eventually, of the 20,241 families assisted by the Committee, 647
families received as much as $500 each.[98] It was not realized at the
beginning that in a great number of instances there would be re-openings
and new applications leading to the granting of new forms of
rehabilitation; that, for example, a family would be helped first to
re-establish itself in business and later to build a house.
Supplementary grants that increased the total allowance to a family to
more than $500 were not passed upon by the Committee as a whole, though
at several meetings the question of requiring the Committee to act as a
whole on the issuance of a series of grants in excess of $500 to an
applicant was informally discussed. No official action, however,
followed the discussions. Before the middle of July the Committee sent
to the newspapers and to others interested, a circular in which was
outlined its general purpose. In this its aim was shown to be not to
determine the size of grants by the extent of losses, but to help those
to re-establish themselves who were unable, even upon a contracted
basis, to do so without assistance.
[98] The difference between these figures and the figures given in
Table 45 on page 165 is due to the fact that successive grants of the
same nature to a single applicant were, in making some compilations,
treated as a single grant, and in making others, as successive grants.
The wisdom of limiting the size of grants may be questioned by some, but
there is no doubt of its paramount importance in giving a rough basis
for work at a time when it was impossible to estimate the number of
families that would require assistance. It is hard to conceive of the
setting of any other standard than this. Without it the possibilities
for confusion and injustice were unusually large. The decision was
reached not only from motives of prudence but also from the Committee’s
sense of responsibility in dealing with such large amounts of money as
would undoubtedly be placed in its hands. That the feeling of personal
responsibility was large was made evident by other actions of the
Committee.[99]
[99] Under somewhat similar circumstances the Chicago Fire Commission
practically limited special relief expenditures to $200 per grant. See
Report of the Chicago Relief and Aid Society of Disbursements of
Contributions for the Sufferers by the Chicago Fire (1874), p. 199.
After the Department of Camps and Warehouses was created on August 1,
1906, the Rehabilitation Committee[100] finally adopted its own policy
with reference to families living in the camps, a policy which as has
been seen[101] had been gradually taking shape during July. The whole
question of the rehabilitation of camp families had been considered at a
lunch given before his departure east by Dr. Devine to the members of
the Committee and the staff. The conclusions of this informal conference
did not take official form, but they may be accepted as marking the
first step in the formulation of the policy. They were: That the camps
should provide for the immediate needs of their inmates; that no stated
sum could be set aside for the ultimate use of those who were expected
to become permanent charges; and that no family living in a camp should
be given rehabilitation aid until it had presented a definite plan for
rehabilitation. It was felt that the effect upon applicants would be
great if once they understood that it was useless for them to come to
the Committee without definite and concrete plans. The subject of
setting aside a sum for the use of the residue came up again in the
latter part of August when Mr. Dohrmann, in making his estimates of the
future disposition of funds, again and again called attention to the
need of reserving large sums to re-establish camp families.
[100] Now a part of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, which
included also the Bureau of Special Relief, Bureau of Hospitals, etc.
[101] See Part I, p. 19 ff.
By August 1 the issuing of rations had been discontinued. The Department
of Camps and Warehouses had taken over the bulk of the work of the
short-lived Executive Commission, and the Rehabilitation Committee had
been made responsible, under the gradual centralization of all relief,
for the granting of all aid other than shelter and the relief-giving
incidental to camp life. The Rehabilitation Committee was, however, in
accordance with the policy it had adopted, steadying the number of
applications made to it by camp families, by requiring an applicant to
give proof that he had an assured dwelling before his request for
household aid was considered. The immediate necessity was to define the
relations between the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation and the
Department of Camps and Warehouses. On August 6, 1906, the chairman of
the latter department, Rudolph Spreckels, met with the Rehabilitation
Committee, and after prolonged consideration the following definite
agreement was reached:
The Department of Camps and Warehouses agreed:
1. To provide necessary food, clothing, and tent equipment to
residents of camps.
2. To refer to the Rehabilitation Committee only such applicants as
were believed to be prepared to leave the tents and to become
undoubtedly self-supporting.
3. To make within the limits of the camp all investigations necessary
to determine the current needs of the refugees.
4. To inform the Rehabilitation Committee of any applicant who had
shown a readiness to leave the camp and to be rehabilitated.
The Rehabilitation Committee on its part agreed:
1. To follow the notification of an applicant’s readiness to leave a
camp by an investigation of its own and to take such action as the
inquiry would warrant.
2. To assume responsibility for supplying all relief outside of the
camps, this full responsibility to be assumed not later than the end
of August.
[Illustration: Camp No. 25, Richmond District, opened November 20, 1906
Camp No. 29, Mission Park, opened November 19, 1906
TWO COTTAGE CAMPS]
The responsibility of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation for
relief outside the camps remained absolute, with the exception of the
housing aid given by the Department of Lands and Buildings. Mr. Bicknell
was appointed to carry out the plan so far as it related to the
Rehabilitation Committee, to which he later presented his plan for the
establishment of a Bureau of Special Relief under the Department of
Relief and Rehabilitation. This new bureau, which is described
elsewhere,[102] gave aid in kind; the Rehabilitation Committee gave
emergency aid in cash.
[102] See Part II, p. 145 ff.
2. PERIODS OF REHABILITATION WORK
By way of introduction to the following chapter, a summary may well be
made of the periods of time into which the rehabilitation work naturally
fell.
May 5 marked the beginning of the rehabilitation work under the
direction of the Red Cross, a period when a force of workers, trained
and untrained, got steadily to work, and when policies began to be
shaped. It may be called the formative period.
July 7 began the second period. It was the time when the Rehabilitation
Committee of the Finance Committee of Relief and Red Cross Funds got
into the saddle, carrying with it the staff and adopting the policies of
the formative period. It was marked by the rapid development of district
organizations; by the rapid increase in the number of applications for
relief. It may be called the period of accelerated applications.
August 20 opened the third period, when a decline in the number of
applications was brought about by new restrictions upon the character of
cases eligible for consideration; the time when the advisability of the
district plan of organization was brought in question. Furthermore, it
was the time when grants were sharply limited by the withholding of the
eastern funds.[103] This may be called the period of arrested progress.
[103] See Part I, p. 99 ff.
November 4 began the fourth period, when the centralized plan was in
force and when a persistent effort was made gradually to decrease the
responsibilities carried by the Rehabilitation Committee. It was the
period of centralized effort.
April 9, 1907, marked the beginning of the fifth and last period, which
closed June 30, 1907, with the taking over of the rehabilitation work by
the Associated Charities. It was a time of rapid discharge of committees
and of readjustments,--the period of withdrawal.
II
METHODS OF WORK[104]
1. THE DISTRICT SYSTEM
Before the formation of the Rehabilitation Committee the Associated
Charities[105] had assumed responsibility, under the Red Cross, for the
investigation of applicants for rehabilitation. During July the
Associated Charities under the direction of the Rehabilitation Committee
organized in each of the seven civil sections of the city a committee of
persons who were related more or less to the previous charity work of
the locality. Each section or district office was supervised by a
chairman[106] under whom was an agent with a corps of visitors and
clerks. By securing in addition to the local charity workers the
services of several experienced workers from states east of the Sierras,
it was possible, as has been already stated, to have an experienced
agent in each district. Four sections were in charge of agents drawn
from the outside; three of agents with experience in the San Francisco
Associated Charities.
[104] The section on methods in Appendix I, p. 406 ff., supplements
this chapter. It is more detailed than is this portion, and is
important to those who are responsible for organizing a relief force.
[105] See Part I, p. 14.
[106] These chairmen were the same men who had been serving since May
as the civilian chairmen in their several sections.
The month of July was one that called for the exercise of discretion and
tact, as it was a time when a large untried force had to be organized to
visit families. A general superintendent of district work was appointed
to bring about unity of ideals and standards in the sections and to
cultivate a sympathetic understanding of the system on the part of all
concerned in it. The position was held during July by one of the eastern
workers and after August 1 by the general secretary of the Associated
Charities. The section committees, mentioned above, made a strong and
interested group of volunteers.