PUBLIC CHARITY AND PRIVATE VIGILANCE. 435 



of $1.22 per capita against our $2.07; and with Hartford far ahead 

 of her nearest competitor. For outdoor relief the figures were 

 similar. Hartford, 90 cents per capita; New Haven, 51 cents; Nor- 

 walk, 23 cents, etc. — an average for the twelve of 61 cents per 

 capita, with only one higher, Hartford in the lead again by fifty 

 per cent. Five Massachusetts cities, including Boston, Worcester, 

 and Lowell, average $1.16 for all relief, against our $2.07; and 24 

 cents for outdoor relief against our 90 cents. Five other New Eng- 

 land cities, including Providence and Bangor, average 33 cents for 

 all relief, against our $2.07; and 12 cents for outdoor, against our 

 90 cents. Four New York cities — New York, Brooklyn, Buffalo, 

 and Albany — average 63 cents, against our $2.07; and 43 cents, 

 against our 90 cents. Five cities in Pennsylvania and Maryland, 

 including Philadelphia, Pittsburg, and Baltimore, average 38 cents 

 against our $2.07; and 4 cents, against our 90 cents. Seven West- 

 ern and Southern cities, including Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Mil- 

 waukee, and Charleston, average 62 cents for all relief, against our 

 $2.07; and 17 cents, against our 90 cents." 



A similar comparison extended by the committee to the prin- 

 cipal cities of Europe, including Berlin, Dresden, and Stuttgart, 

 showed that here again Hartford led them all. In short, it ap- 

 peared to be proved that Hartford was spending on the poor more 

 money per capita of population than any other city in the United 

 States, and more than any other in the world, with certain excep- 

 tions in Italy, and the noteworthy exceptions of London, $3.75 per 

 capita, and Paris, $3.66 per capita. Hartford, however, outranked 

 even London in its percentage of pauper population, which was 6.2 

 in Hartford, against 2.46 in London. While in Hartford every 

 sixteenth person was a recipient of municipal bounty, in Lon- 

 don the proportion was only one in forty. Paris led all, with one 

 in eight. 



Investigation of the causes of this deplorable state of affairs 

 revealed an astonishing understanding between the paupers and the 

 officials. Tramps were given residence and support for the sake 

 of their votes on election day. Grocery stores were practically 

 subsidized. Families whose individual members could be made use- 

 ful politically were supported in outdoor relief. 



That the showing was so much better for New York and other 

 great American cities was not a proof of greater honesty or wisdom 

 of administration on the part of municipal officials. The differ- 

 ence was almost wholly due to the enormous extension of private 

 as over against public charity outside of typical New England Com- 

 monwealths like Connecticut, Avhere the town method of dealing 

 with such matters still holds its own against other forms of philan- 



