Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 6.djvu/105

 PUBLIC OUTDOOR RELIEF 9 1

time to time. Especially in the winter months, a large number of persons need relieving for a short time ; and if the almshouses were large enough to accommodate them during the winter, there would be great buildings vacant during the summer.

"On the other side the following considerations are urged:

"(i) It increases the number of applicants, because it is less manifestly disgraceful than the indoor system, and is much more pleasant to receive for other obvious reasons. The saving in cost for a single person supported is more than made up by the additional number of persons that will claim to require relief. It is a sufficiently pleasant form of being relieved, so that, if no requirement except indigency is made, a large num- ber of persons will become duly indigent in order to qualify for the receipt of alms.

" (2) It is urged that outdoor relief is undesirable, because it requires an amount of discrimination between cases that is practically impossible where the work is done by public officials. It has long been a principle that any work was suitable for a government to do in proportion as it could be reduced to a routine and done in a semi-mechanical way. As the work of giving outdoor relief cannot be done in this semi-mechanical way, it is unsuitable for public officials to undertake.

"(3) It is urged that corruption of politics results from the system, and that, in fact, the whole tone of the population is lowered where this form of relief is given. In many cases it is unworthy motives favoring the retention of the system that make it difficult to secure its abolition.

" (4) Where outdoor relief has been given lavishly, as in England at some times and places, it has simply resulted in reducing the rate of wages, the amount given in relief being reckoned on as a possible resource, so that the employe would accept lower wages than would otherwise have been possible."

Professor Warner states his own opinion as follows : "Those who favor the system of outdoor relief usually argue upon theory, or draw their facts from rural communities where the problems are comparatively simple and where abuses are readily checked. On the other hand, the opposers of the system deal