ISSUED BY THE CHARITY ORGANIZATION SOCIETY 
 OF CHICAGO. 
 
 HOW PAUPERS ARE MADE. 
 
 An Address on the Prevention of Pauperism. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rev. S. HUMPHREYS GURTEEN, 
 
 Organizing Secretary 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CHICAGO CHARITY ORGANIZATION SOCIETY. 
 
 CHICAGO : 
 
 Printed by R. R. Donnelley & Sons, 142 Monroe Street. 
 1883. 
 

 
 ' 6 C; | . 
 
 & H o 
 
4V Jc '3 w > U. H, 
 
 How Paupers are Made, 
 
 The rapid growth of Pauperism, of late years, in every one of 
 the great cities of our land is too apparent to be overlooked 
 and too alarming to be allowed any longer to exist unheeded by the 
 philanthropic and charitable among our people. 
 
 At the present day this important subject is receiving the 
 serious and earnest consideration of thoughtful men in every section 
 of the country, and the question is being asked on every hand 
 “Is there not some practical, well-devised scheme for preventing 
 the growth of this evil” — an evil be it remembered which is increas- 
 ing as steadily as our national prosperity is advancing and which is 
 keeping even pace with the yearly increasing wealth of the 
 country ? 
 
 - ^ Unfortunately the business men in our large cities know but 
 little of the utter ruin — personal, social, and moral — which always 
 _ marks the track of Pauperism. They see the pauper, perhaps, for 
 a few seconds as he stands at the door of their offices or their homes 
 to beg, and then vanishes from their sight ; or, it may be, that now 
 and again they catch a momentary glimpse of this terrible evil when 
 some reporter for the public press gives a wood picture of scenes 
 which he has witnessed in some of the hot-beds of Pauperism. But 
 if we would see Pauperism as it is ; how it destroys all that is noble 
 in human nature ; how it casts its deadly blight over all family ties ; 
 how it desecrates the home ; how it pillages society and rebels 
 against all law and social order, we must witness it for ourselves as 
 it exists in its hiding-places in this and other great centres of popu- 
 lation. 
 
 It may seem to be a sweeping statement, but we make it un- 
 hesitatingly, that so-called charity is largely , responsible for tip s 
 terrible state of things : for Charity can be the greatest blessing 
 or the greatest curse of the human race. 
 
4 
 
 f 
 
 Charity can take the helpless orphan, educate him, and start him 
 in life on an equal footing with his more favored fellows. It can take 
 the aged, whom misfortune has overtaken late in the struggle for 
 wealth, and render their declining years peaceful and happy. It can 
 take those who are out of employment, but ready and willing to work, 
 and can raise them to a position of permanent self-support. It can 
 take the temporary sick, who, if well, would be wholly or partially 
 self-supporting, and by proper care can hasten their restoration 
 to health. It can take the children of working women and give them 
 food and shelter, and the first step in their secular education as 
 citizens, while the mothers are at work ; and in many a way it can 
 help to better and elevate the condition of the helpless and honest 
 poor. Yes, Charity can do all this, and much more that is benefi- 
 cent, and elevating, and ennobling ! But charity is not always 
 beneficent. It is possible to do an immense amount of harm by 
 charity, so-called. It is possible to reduce a fellow-being to the con- 
 dition of a willing pauper by fostering habits of indolence and 
 dependence and improvidence. It is possible to rob a human 
 being of his manhood — of all that is noble in his nature, and to leave 
 him a mere wreck, to drift hither and thither on the ocean of life, 
 in utter recklessness and despondency, till he ends his days in the 
 workhouse, the reformatory or the prison. 
 
 Now, too distinct a line cannot be drawn between the poor 
 man and the pauper . We cannot think that there is any room in 
 this busy world of ours for those social drones who prey upon the 
 industry of others, and prefer to beg rather than to work. The 
 very existence of the pauper is a disgrace to our civilization. For 
 the “ poor ” there is ample room in the great heart of humanity, 
 but tHe very word “pauper ’’ is a blot upon our language. Yes, 
 and not only have we given a name to this creature of our own mak- 
 ing, this mixture of things pitiful and hateful, we have even put 
 the idea into brick and stone, and in our “ county alms-houses ” we 
 have pauperism vaunting itself in official garb and coming home to 
 us, as curses always do, to be fed, and clothed, and supported at the 
 expense of the industrious . * 
 
 -pWe say that the pauper is the creature of our own making; 
 how then are paupers made ? 
 
 'b Take a simple illustration of the steps by which an honest hu- 
 man being is reduced to the condition of a pauper. Take the case 
 of a poor woman, a widow ; a case that is constantly coming to 
 
5 
 
 the notice of the benevolent. What has usually been our action in 
 such a case ? Instead of once for all considering how much she 
 could do for her own and her children’s support, and uniting our 
 forces to relieve her of that part of the burden which she could not 
 possibly meet, we have allowed her to come to our houses to beg, and 
 we have given her, when her story or tears moved us, a few dollars. 
 We eased our own feelings by doing this, but what besides did we 
 accomplish ? Did we fortify her for the battle of life ? Did we 
 cultivate in her the habit of frugality, or deliberate arrangement as 
 to the best expenditure of her scanty means? No! We did our 
 best to teach her how easy it was, if she got into debt, to go around 
 from house to house and solicit a few dollars from each, and having 
 met the difficulty for the moment to begin involving herself in an- 
 other. Now look at her a few years later. The sincere grief of the 
 widowed mother degraded into a means of begging ! The ready 
 tear s coming at call ! The sacred grief paraded for every one to see, 
 in hopes that some one may alleviate it with a half dollar ! The 
 sense of a right to be helped has been fostered : the sense of her 
 own duty has been weakened. The easily-be g ged money has b een 
 easi ly spea k and grief has becom e henstock in trade. Perhaps she has 
 discovered, too, that professions of piety are rewarded with cash. 
 We are shocked at her hypocrisy ; we say we were only too glad to 
 help her when she was an honest woman, and while her grief was 
 strong and sincere, but now it is different. And what has made her 
 different? What but our own unwise, uncharitable charity? The 
 world is beginning to see that there is such a thing as making a pau- 
 per — a confirmed and willing beggar — of our fellows, that there is 
 such a thing as undermining their manhood, robbing them of their 
 self-esteem, destroying their independence of character and leaving 
 them without a will to work or ambition to seek it. In unwise alms- 
 giving there is infinitely more at stake than wasting one’s own 
 money; it is disastrous to the poor, it is often ruin to the poor. ' 
 
 But the curse does not end here. By an eternal law, the law 
 of Environment, the children of paupers themsejves become paupers; 
 and by a second eternal law, the law of Heredity, paupers breed 
 i pa\ipfirs 4 _till at length we meet with such terrible cases as that of 
 the Wood family in Indianapolis, or the Jukes family in the State 
 oj^N&jy York, where whole families for generations back have been 
 breeding pauperism and vice till they have become an insufferable 
 tax upon the community and a curse to the country. 
 
6 
 
 Now what means do we adopt to counteract this terrible state 
 of things? I reply, absolute ly none. We give ourselves up to a 
 masterly inactivity. We let pauperism severely alone. 
 
 Ask any of the clergy of the city what course they adopt with 
 regard to paupers,; ask any of our benevolent societies ; ask our 
 business men. One and all will tell you, “ W e g ive nothing to 
 the pauper if we know it.” 
 
 Now I have no fault to find with this. It most certainly is not 
 the duty of any almoner of charity funds, whether official or private, 
 to expend on the pauper what is intrusted to him for the benefit of 
 the poor. I would simply call your attention to the fact that this 
 part of charity work, the reclaiming of the p auper, does not come 
 under the cognizance of any existing society. 
 
 But to return. It is the distinguishing mark of the pauper to 
 refuse to work — to prefer to beg. What then is he to do whentKe 
 door of every relief agency is closed against him, the door of 
 every church, the door of every office and home ? Does this necessi- 
 tate his earning his bread by the sweat of his brow ? JP erhaps not, 
 as theologians understand that text. No, wor k apart, his sole 
 resourc es t o live b y imposture an d fraud , and by means of a 
 cleverly worked up tale, well told, and accompanied by a few sim- 
 ple dramatic effects to secure a substantial living and no questions 
 asked.* . Day by day he goes from office to office, house to house, his 
 route forthe month being mapped out as skilfully as the experi- 
 enced manager of a theatrical troupe plans a provincial tour^ And 
 
 -\ 
 
 why should he work when beggin gjpays s o much be tter ? 
 
 But even at this point he has not reached the lowest depths of 
 deception. To show you the sequel to false charity, I must take 
 you to England, to a country where pauperism has grown hoary 
 with age, where the skill of the impostor has had to keep pace with 
 the increased scrutiny of the benevolent, where pauperism has be- 
 come an art. 
 
 Not long ago there appeared in the advertising columns of some 
 of the London journals a notice, stating that “ the art of begging is 
 *‘S«wexhaustively taught in six lessons by Professor Lazarus Rooney, 
 who begs to inform the public that he has founded a college for 
 theoretical and practical instruction in mendicancy .” Among 
 other practical appliances for the profession the professor announces^ 
 that he keeps on hand artificial wounds and sores, assorted braces! 
 of twins, trained dogs for blind men, crutches for cripples and surd 
 
I 
 
 7 
 
 / gical bandages for wounded impostors. Information is afforded 
 respecting the most lucrative streets and neighborhoods. 
 
 One step lower and the end is reached. I have in my posses- 
 sion a notice, issued by the Charity Organization Society of London, 
 warning citizens not to give to the following fraudulent societies : 
 “The Christian Men’s Union Benevolent Association,” “ The Dis- 
 abled Firemans’ Relief and Pension Association,” “ The Free 
 Dormitory Association.” These and many similar devices for pick- 
 ’ ing the pockets of the charitable are the direct outcome of senti- 
 mental, unwise alms-giving. 
 
 The poor man, robbed of his will to labor by unwise charity, be- 
 comes in course of tim e a beg gar; from beggar he becomes a pauper ; 
 the pauper left to himself becomes by easy steps an impostor ; from 
 i mpostor a criminal , and often ends his days, as he has lived, at the 
 expense of the public. 
 
 The question arises then, is it possible to prevent the pauperiza- 
 j tion of the poor, for if this can be done you strike at once at the 
 source of all this degradation and crim e. I ajnsrEfixJtiiatJ^ ; 
 
 and I do not hesitate to say, after many years of experience, that 
 Charity Organization is the only means, so far devised, for effecting 
 this great end. 
 
 Now what is Charity Organization? If I were asked for a short 
 ^ definition, I should say it is the nineteenth century’s solution of the 
 great problem of pauperism. But let me explain what I mean. Dr. 
 Chalmers, early in the present century, while working heroically 
 against the pauperism of his parish in Glasgow struck out the two great 
 principles : 1st, that pauperism cannot be dealt with in the mass, but 
 must be attacked individually, and this led to the idea of dividing a 
 
 ( city into districts; and 2d, he insisted that material relief and spiritual 
 instruction should never be attempted by the same person unless 
 we wish to raise up an army of hypocrites. Then came Frederick 
 Ozanam, the founder of the celebrated St. Vincent de Paul society, 
 of Paris, now of the world, with the great principle of unsectarian- 
 ism in charity, and the duty of helping the poor because they are 
 men, and not because they belong to this or that church ; and (2), 
 he struck out the idea of helping the poor by the u alms of good 
 advice” rather than by money; and (3), being provident for the 
 poor as. they are seldom provident for themselves. Then came the 
 Elberfeld system inaugurated by Herr von der Heydt, and showing 
 what might be accomplished by systematic, constant and kindly 
 
8 
 
 4 - 
 
 oversight of a friend at the homes of the poor, taking, when neces- 
 sary, relief to the home and doing away with the degrading neces- 
 sity of obliging the poor either to ask or to seek charity. Then 
 came the ' self-sacrificing work of Edward Denison in London, a 
 young Oxford graduate, son of a bishop of the Church of England, 
 who took up his residence among the very poorest classes so as to 
 learn by actual experience what could be done to check the pauperism 
 of the great metropolis, and who came to the conclusion that the 
 greater part of all charity was doing positive harm, and was a pre- 
 mium on idleness, vice and crime. And finally, as the crystallization 
 of all the thought and experience of various parts of Europe, came 
 the Charity Organization Society of London, which has accomplished 
 perfect marvels in that city of four millions of people. 
 
 Now if charity organization is the solution of the great problem 
 of pauperism, it must answer, and answer in a plain, practical way 
 the three questions which lie at the root of the whole matter. It 
 must answer the question : How are we to prevent the poor from be- 
 
 ing under the necessity of asking or receiving alms ? Now by the term 
 “poor” 1 mean that large class who under ordinary circumstances 
 are self-supporting, but perhaps barely so — those who while health 
 and strength last can make both ends meet and nothing more. 
 
 Now, I ask you is it true charity, is it true love, to take no 
 thought for our neighbor so long as, by hard toil and freedom from 
 sickness, he can keep clear of the County Agent’s office, or can 
 avoid the scrutiny of the relief agency, or does not darken the doors 
 of your offices or homes, asking for alms? Yet where is the benevo- 
 lent society which assumes the duty of attending to the interests of 
 this large class throughout the city, watching over them, riot with 
 the keen eye of the money maker, but with the loving interest of 
 a friend? 
 
 It is here that the Charity Organization Society steps in with a 
 strong, loving hand, and does what no relief society has ever at- 
 tempted in the past. It goes in the person of its District Agent to 
 this class in every district, not in a patronizing way — which is as 
 offensive to the poor as it is to the rich — but as fellow-men, and pre- 
 sents provident schemes based on sound business principles, and 
 backed by the strong ones of the city — schemes which are brought 
 down to the level of their small incomes, and they are appealed to 
 by the same arguments of forethought and provision for the morrow 
 which weigh with the wealthy or well-to-do when they insure their 
 
lives or their property. Two illustrations will suffice. The two 
 chief causes which compel the poor to ask for alms, and thus to take 
 the first step in possible pauperization, are sickness a nd w an Lof jg&rk • 
 How does the society anticipate these emergencies? In every dis- 
 trict there will be started, unless already in existence, a branch of 
 the Provident Dispensary, where, by the payment of ten cents per 
 month for the man, ten cents for the wife, and five cents for the 
 , child, say a cent for each working day of the month, the poor man 
 and his family will be entitled when sick to the services of a physi- 
 cian, and to medicines either at the Dispensary or at the house, as 
 the case may require. This is no mere theorizing. During the past 
 fifteen years, so convinced have the medical profession of London 
 become that free medicines pauperize just as much as free soup or 
 fiee rent,' that the oId^free"dispensaries haveT)een changed, wTEETew 
 exceptions, into p rovident dispen sa ries , and new provident ones 
 started in many of the large cities of England. 
 
 This system is no injustice to the doctors, for the reason that 
 the class of persons who are eligible as members never pay a doctor 
 as the matter stands to-day, while under the provident system the 
 doctors receive the majority of the money arising from membership 
 dues. 
 
 It is not pauperizing to the poor, because they pay for what 
 they receive, and their self-respect is not destroyed. 
 
 Or, take a second example : In every district the society will 
 
 establish a branch of the Penny, or provident Bank, which will be 
 taken to the very homes of the poor. They will not be asked to call 
 at some imposing building during working hours, where they would 
 be jostled by well-dressed depositors, and perhaps raise a smile by 
 the smallness of their deposit. The agent, or other person duly 
 authorized will attend at some convenient place in their own quarter 
 after working hours, will receive their small savings, and no one 
 will be ashamed of the smallness of his deposit when all deposits are 
 of a like nature. And here again I say this is no untried theory. 
 Says Mr. Bartley, in one of his series of Provident Knowledge 
 Papers : 
 
 “The amount of money which may be collected in this way is 
 almost incredible. In the Yorkshire Penny Banks, which are so 
 admirably managed, no less than <£24,867 2s. 2d. was due to the 
 depositors on the 31st of December, 1870, in the Leeds Central 
 Branch alone. The amount due to the depositors at the 248 
 
10 
 
 branches was — at the same date — no less than £ 229,609 2s. A great 
 part of this — it is not too ranch to say — would have been heedlessly 
 spent, or what is worse, probably was ted in drink^ had it not thus 
 been secured through the agency of the Penny Banks.’’ 
 
 I might instance other provident schemes, but I have said suf- 
 ficient to illustrate what is the Society’s plan to prevent the poor 
 from being under the necessity of asking or receiving alms. 
 
 But there is another question which the Society must answer 
 practically if it is the solution of the problem of Pauperism, and the 
 question is this: 
 
 How are we to prevent the pauperization of those who are compelled 
 ' to seek relief? 
 
 It is beyond dispute th tibhe a aing A s repugnant and wholly re- 
 pugnant to mail’s nature, as God has made him. If you doubt this 
 statement }^ou have only to w atc h JJiaqxDpr man the .. first time that 
 ha is co mpelled fq ask for assistance. The burning shame which he 
 feels is manifest in every look, every gesture, every word. The 
 very disclaimer which he puts forward, viz.: that he has never 
 begged before — that the want of employment, or the fact of sick- 
 ness, alone, could force him thus to meet the wants of a starving 
 family, shows .how alien begging is to true manhood; how degrading 
 — yes, it verily seems as though the poor, at such times, had a 
 strong though silent feeling that they are taking the first step in a 
 downward path. 
 
 Now, what the Charity Organization Society is striving to effect, 
 is the fostering of this honest feeling, where it exists, in the bosoms 
 P of the poor, or if it has already been deadened by almsgiving, to 
 guard the poor against further pauperization, and to rekindle their 
 self-respect. 
 
 BuThow is this to be accomplished ? 
 
 We contend that it is pauperizing to give charity even to the 
 honest poor, unless we throw around them the safeguard of thorough 
 investi gation and personal interest in their welfare. We do not deny 
 for a single moment that the Relief agencies of our large cities do, 
 as a matter of fact, investigate to t he best of their ability . But 
 what the Society maintains is this: that it is impossible to investi- 
 gate thoroughly, no matter what the age or experience of a benevo- 
 lent agency may be, unless there is ihe ^registration of all relief that 
 is being given in a city, whether from the public purse, from benevo- 
 lent societies, or from charitable individuals. Registration is a pre-re- 
 
11 
 
 quisite to investigation. Why is it that in every State of the Union, 
 / all deeds, all mortgages, all transfers of real estate, are required by 
 law to be recorded or registered ? If there were no registration, I 
 ask you, could the lawyer make a search, i.e., investigate a title with 
 any degree of certainty ? Why is it that registration is becoming 
 the rule in all business operations ? Is it not for the purpose of de- 
 tectin g fraud and protecting rightful claims, and is it not acknow- 
 ledged to be a benefit to the honest and a drawback only to those 
 who have fraudulent intentions? 
 
 And so it is in the matter of charity. Registration, i.e., report- 
 ing to some Central Office the name and address of all who are as- 
 sisted by charity, is the sole means of detecting fraud on the one 
 hand, and on the other, of preventing the pauperization of the 
 needy poor. The system adapted by the Charity Organization 
 Society is such that if the benev olent-of-Hie^ bu jjmlly 
 
 co-operate.- imp osition would be wffihmigf) im possible. Register 
 your charities and theTmpostor might apply to a score of charitable 
 persons, to* a dozen relief societies, to a half a dozen of the clergy, 
 but each time, if the case were referred to the Society for investiga- 
 tion, the same report would be returned and the impostor would be 
 compelled either to do his fair share of work or to leave the city of 
 Chicago. 
 
 In the case of the poor who need assistance, registration is no 
 less important. How is it possible to know for certain whether the 
 gift of money or food or clothing will do harm, will pauperize, unless 
 -we know how much the applicant is already receiving from other 
 sources ? 
 
 And here it must be remembered that the poor can be pauper- 
 ized either by too much charity or by too little charity. 
 
 Suppose that a family is in real distress. There is not a right- 
 minded man in the community but would do his utmost to assist. 
 But suppose that the same tale of distress is told to a dozen different 
 ^.citizens, and each, imagining that he is fully relieving a fellow 
 creature’s want, gives of his abundance, I ask you, would he be so 
 ready to give if he knew for certain that eleven others were doing 
 the same thing ? 
 
 Believe me, the majority of the poor, even the honest poor, as 
 we call them, wi ll-get alLlhejr nan ; they An not, spgjW, it is wrong; : 
 they do not see that they are doing themselves an injury. It is for s , 
 us to guard them and prevent them from doing themselves an in- 
 
12 
 
 justice. Now I ask you to note the true kindness of Registration. 
 f It enables the charitable to give without fear of pauperizing the 
 recipient for it shows how much is really needed and when the 
 emergency is once met prevents the possibility of the applicant 
 drawing any further relief. Nor is this all. 
 
 It sees that the needy ha vojidequate help so as to preclude the 
 degrading necessitv. i)f begging , and this is all important. If the 
 poor cannot get sufficient from one source they will seek it else- 
 where, they will beg, and what can be more pauperizing than this ? 
 Besides the Society will notify citizens who may be assisting a case, 
 the very moment the emergency no longer exists, so that relief 
 can be cut off at once.~‘" , Otherwise the poor might be taught to lean 
 on alms-giving and be robbed of their will to work. 
 
 I know that the objection will be made that registration in- 
 volves a breach of J,hat .secrecy which ought to characterize our 
 alms-giving. I would be the last to advocate a system which did 
 any injustice to the poor or any violence to the holy instincts of the 
 benevolent. But the registration of which I am speaking is solely 
 in the interest of the poor. The information confided to the Society 
 is held as a sacred trust. _ Its books a re jealous l y guarded.. No one 
 outside of the office is allowed access to these depositories of infor- 
 mation and even reports are sent only to those who have a legitimate 
 interest in cases. 
 
 Those who talk of thorough “investigation,” but ignore regis- 
 tration know but little of the needs of the present day. It has well 
 been asked “To what purpose is it that a visitor expend half a day in 
 investigating any given case that charity may not be misapplied if 
 / the applicant can depend on half a dozen other sources of supply?” 
 No independent investigat ion can prevent jpauperization. So long 
 as but one loophole is left unguarded pauperization - is possible. It 
 is by registration, and registration alone that the public can be pro- 
 tected from fraud and the poor be protected from harm by super- 
 fluous alms-giving. 
 
 The third and last question which Charity Organization must 
 answer if it be the solution of the problem of Pauperism is this : 
 How are we to reclaim the pauperized poor f 
 
 This is indeed a difficult question to answer. The confirmed 
 pauper — the creature of persistent, immoral almsgiving — is almost 
 as difficult to reclaim as the confirmed drunkard. ^ I never see one 
 of these poor wrecks of humanity but I think of Archbishop 
 
13 
 
 Whatley’s remark : “ I thank God that I shall never have to repent 
 on my death-bed of ever having given a penny to a street beggar.” 
 They take your charity (so called), drink your health at the nearest 
 Saloon, and laugh at your credulity. It would be but poetic justice 
 to send all such to the county almshouse to be supported by the tax 
 payers, who have made them what they are. 
 
 But let us look the question full in the face. There are the 
 shiftless, who are are too idle to work ; the improvident , who squan- 
 der their means ; the dissolute , who drink or gamble away their 
 means and unfit themselves for steady work ; the confirmed pauper, 
 who makes a profession of begging ; and the tramp or vagrant, who 
 leads a worthless life and is but too often a thief. What is to be 
 done with these cases? Are we to leave them to starve? Are we 
 to allow them to live upon* alms, and rob the honest poor? Or, 
 again, are we to make them a charge upon the industrial classes, by 
 taxing our citizens for their support ? 
 
 I venture to think that none of these courses would for a 
 moment approve itself to any thoughtful man. No, but one 
 course is open, viz.: to give relief on the sole condition that each 
 one makes a full return in work for whatever he may receive, or 
 refusing this, bear the just penalty of his refusal. 
 
 But there is a large class of the par tia lly pauperized, who can 
 and should be reclaimed. How is this to be done? Let me give 
 you an illustration, as it will bring out in a clear light the principles 
 which underlie the Society’s plan. 
 
 A widow with four children applied to the Buffalo Society for 
 aid. It was found, on investigation, that the children were being 
 supported at a private orphan asylum, at an expense to the city of 
 $400 per annum. The woman herself was in receipt of poor-law 
 relief amounting to $100 per annum. It was further found that 
 she was in receipt of charity from a variety of sources, so that she 
 was living in absolute idleness, supported by the gifts of the benevo- 
 lent. The Chairman of the Committee of the District in which she 
 lived endeavored to arouse her ambition by appealing to her 
 motherly instincts, pointing out the disgrace that it would be to 
 the children in after days to be known as the children of a well- 
 known pauper. But it was all in vain. She boldly confessed that 
 she had neve r been so comforta ble as she had since the “ kind ladies” 
 had taken charge of her. As every attempt at persuasion failed, 
 the Society, as a last resort, held a consultation with the Poor 
 
14 
 
 Master, and the weekly dole of official relief was immediately cut 
 off. It was this which brought her to her senses. She asked what 
 the Society proposed to do to compensate her for the loss of the 
 "weekly official order. When told that she would be provided with 
 work to an equal amount, she at first refused to listen to the offer, 
 but finally accepted in a surly, half-angry mood. Four months 
 elapsed. At the end of this time she came to the office, and of her own 
 accord asked if the Committee could procure her more work, as she 
 didn’t care to live upon charity any longer. Additional work was 
 procured, and at her own request the “ kind ladies” were notified 
 that she no longer needed their assistance. Nearly a year elapsed, 
 when she again came to the District office for a private interview 
 with the Chairman. She wanted her children, as she had ample 
 work and could support them. The lkdy visitor who had been 
 appointed to exercise a kindly oversight of the case was asked to 
 see that the home was made bright and pleasant. The children 
 were t#ken from the asylum ; the family was once again brought 
 together ; the city was saved $ 500 per annum ; and the woman 
 herself was reclaimed, and is to-day as honest and hard working a 
 woman as lives in the city of Buffalo. 
 
 I ask you to note carefully the steps by which this result was 
 accomplished : 
 
 1st. Registration disclosed the fact, not only that the woman 
 was being pauperized, but also the extent to which this was 
 the case. 
 
 2d. The most demoralizing part of the charity she was receiv- 
 ing, the official dole, was cut off, and employment was found in 
 its place. 
 
 3d. A visitor was appointed, not to give alms, but the alms of 
 good advice, so as to strengthen the woman’s resolves ; to help her 
 to make the home bright and cheerful, and to show her how to get 
 the maximum of health and comfort from her small means. 
 
 4th. As additional employment was procured, private relief 
 was cut off, and the woman was thrown once again upon her 
 own resources. 
 
 5th. As her self-respect and independence of character re- 
 turned, the motherly instinct revived, and the receipt of relief in 
 any shape became as distasteful as before it had been welcome. 
 
 I think it must be apparent from the brief sketch just given of 
 the aiins of charity organization, that it is the friend of every char- 
 
15 
 
 itable agency in the city, and the rival of none. It interferes in no 
 way with the operations of any existing jiharity . It seeks to cut off 
 the waste but advocatestneTS^est hearted benevolence. It de- 
 nounces the pauperization of the poor under the guise of charity, 
 but it tries to strengthen the hands of every society, every individual 
 who strives to give with discrimination. It^giyes no alms, nor does 
 it ask ^rnone y for thisj urpose. It leaves the question of religious 
 instruction to those who make this their especial duty. It allows 
 ^no proselytism in any department of its work. It is simply humani- 
 tarian in its aims. It seeks by organizing all the charitable forces 
 of the city to promote the social and moral elevation of the poor and 
 the pauper. 
 
 It is not too much to say that the future well-being of this 
 community — the future prosperity of the nation — depends on this : 
 whether we boldly face and resolutely fight by rational methods the 
 ever growing pauperism of the country or sit down in indolence till 
 those whom we have pauperized turn upon us as a curse for our neg- 
 lect of a great and imperative duty.