POOR RELIEF IN THE UNITED STATES 153 



considers that a richly developed private charity precisely in 

 the field of outdoor relief comes to the aid of public relief, and 

 that the effort to keep the care of children, the feeble minded, 

 the sick, and the defective separate from other public poor 

 relief is constantly .gaining ground. F. Almy has published a 

 study in the Charities Review on the relation between private 

 and public outdoor poor relief, in which he has brought to- 

 gether the facts about public and private outdoor relief in 

 forty American cities. The figures are, as the author himself 

 makes clear, not very satisfactory in relation to private charity, 

 since a ver^^ great part of private charity can not be represented 

 in figures. Nevertheless the tables give an approximate rep- 

 resentation of the importance of private charity, which al- 

 ways comes into relief where public outdoor charity is not em- 

 ployed or only in limited degree, as is seen particularly in 

 Baltimore, New York, San Francisco and St. Louis. In cer- 

 tain cities, as Boston, considerable expenditures from both 

 sides nearly balance each other, while in others, as Cincinnati 

 and New Orleans, expenditures for public poor relief, as well 

 as for private charity, are described as unimportant. In some 

 cities, as in Syracuse, public poor relief gives assistance in 

 large measure, while private charity seems to be lacking. The 

 figures seem to me not very reliable, since it is impossible that 

 in ten of the forty cities no private charity should be given, 

 and in ten others an inconsiderable sum. In these cases ac- 

 curate information seems to have been lacking. At the same 

 time, a certain interaction between the two factors is not to be 

 denied. 



Against the extension of legal outdoor relief the argument 

 is often urged that it represses private benevolence, or at least 

 makes its task appear less exigent. Among recognized author- 

 ities Dr. Walk, of Philadelphia, declares that no need has been 

 felt in his city for restoring municipal outdoor relief, and that 

 private benevolence was entirely adequate. Miss Richmond, 

 of Baltimore, thinks that the anxiety about doing away 

 with this system may be compared to the dread of bringing 

 infants out of overheated rooms into the fresh air. 



Wilson remarks in his report (National Conference, 1900) 

 that he had made inquiries of many charity workers in smaller 



