A SOCIAL POLICY TOWARD DEPENDENTS 821 



scale." which means that the rate of wages fluctuates with the price 

 of the commodity produced, has no ultimate basis in reason, and does 

 not provide a socially acceptable minimum rate. (4) The rule of 

 the strongest, in the fight between trade-unions and employers' 

 combinations, which gives the advantage to the party which holds 

 out longest, is simply a barbarous makeshift, with a rational standard 

 far in the dim background. And where unions and combinations do 

 agree the result is simply more hardship for the consumers, and 

 bears with greatest weight on the very poor. (5) The only rational 

 starting-point is a minimum standard below which public morality 

 expressed in sentiment, custom, trade-union regulations, moral maxims, 

 and law, will not permit workers to be employed for wages. 



As I have elsewhere discussed this minimum in relation to the 

 industrial group, it remains only to indicate the contribution which 

 charity work has made to the discussion of a standard. The dietaries 

 of asylums, orphanages, hospitals, and prisons are the outcome of a 

 long series of experiments in chemical and physiological laboratories, 

 in army and navy, in camp and mine, as well as in these institutions 

 of charity and correction. 



One field for the adoption of a standardized minimum remains 

 to be cultivated, that of adequate outdoor relief to needy families 

 in their homes. The stupid complacency with which only too many 

 public officials and private benevolent societies pretend to relieve 

 the destitute, while leaving many of them still partly to depend on 

 begging, theft, or vice, is a sad commentary on the state of knowledge 

 in this region. One result of this unscientific guesswork, where 

 measurement is already possible, is that much public money is spent 

 on the burial of pauper children which should have gone to feed and 

 nourish them into vigorous producers of wealth. 



Charity, in American cities, is far behind its task. It does not 

 even have knowledge of those who need its aid. Under the " Elber- 

 feld " system there are friends of the dependent in every small 

 district of the city, and the individuals on the border of suffering can 

 easily find their way to a helper. In America the public funds are 

 frequently accessible only in one central office, and even when there 

 is outdoor relief it is limited in amount. 



There are many people in comfortable circumstances, and many 

 charity workers, who think that our American charity is very nearly 

 adequate. This optimism, I believe, is not based on facts, and is 

 positively a barrier to necessary improvements. My own conviction 

 is based on long personal observation and on certain professional 

 testimonies and statistical data. For example: Physicians who 

 practice among the poor frequently report sickness and mortality 

 which arise from " starvation diseases." Teachers of public schools 

 in poor quarters make similar statements. The London and Chicago 



