Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 3.djvu/655

 THE RELIEF AND CARE OF DEPENDENTS 64 1

A few states provide that a county shall relieve an indigent non-resident and remove him to the place of his settlement, the expense of both relief and removal being recovered. 1

In a number of states, on the other hand, "common prac- tice" seems to have been enacted into law. They have the pro- vision that a non-resident indigent shall be cared for or else removed to his settlement." Whether one shall be cared for or removed depends upon which is the more convenient. In Okla- homa, Indiana, the two Dakotas, and Kansas it is expressly a matter of convenience. The sick, however, are in no case to be removed. 3

When a town or county is notified by another town or county of the indigence of one of its residents, it must remove him or else, if it feels aggrieved, protest his residence. When a pauper is removed by a town or county to his reputed settle- ment, he must be received, but such action may be protested. Settlement is a question of fact, and all protests are decided by the court or by a body authorized to decide such cases. 4

other hand, the statutes of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire provide that a pauper must be removed or his settlement protested within sixty days, or protest of residence or expense is debarred. In Rhode Island protest is limited to forty days; in South Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa, thirty days. In Ohio Nevada, and Colorado paupers are to be removed immediately.

1 Pennsylvania (7 Kulp., 199, and 12 C.C., 305); Delaware (13, ch.48); North Caro- lina (3540-3546); Mississippi (3145-3147); Minnesota (1965); Oregon (3950); and Wyoming (1957). In Pennsylvania such expense can be recovered only when the pauper has been removed to his settlement with reasonable promptness. In Dela- ware such recovery is definitely limited to six months. In Minnesota the pauper is to be warned to leave the county, and, if he does not do so within a reasonable time, he is to be removed.

New Jersey (17, 23, Act of 1891); West Virginia (10, ch. 46); Virginia (878); Oklahoma (3657-3665); Indiana (6079); North Dakota (1485-1486); South Dakota (2151-2161); Kansas (4040-4050); Washington (1603); and Montana (3209-3211).

In Washington, as in Minnesota, a non-resident applying for relief is to be warned by the constable to leave the county. If he does not leave, he is to be removed.

3 In New Jersey (8, Act of April 14, 1891), Indiana (6089), and Kansas the expense incurred in the care of the sick is recovered from the place of settlement. In other case* it seems to be at the expense of the county caring for the sick. The courts of Dakota have held (i S. D., 131) that the expense incurred in caring for the tick could not be recovered.

4 In a few states disputes between towns are settled by bodies other than the court.