THE MERCIFUL INSTITUTIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA.
BY PROF. CHAS. J. LITTLE, PH.D.,
State Librarian of Pennsylvania.
The State of Pennsylvania makes generous provision for her poor—or, since one half of the inmates of her alms-houses are foreign born, it will be better to say, for the poor within her borders. In the twenty counties of the state in which there are no alms-houses, and where the poor are cared for under the township system, there are expended perhaps $300,000 annually. How the poor are cared for under this wretched system, it were perhaps better not to inquire too curiously. In the remaining counties of the state there are sixty-one alms-houses, the total cost of maintaining which amounted in the year 1883 to $1,296,945. In addition to this sum, these same counties spend a quarter of a million of dollars in what is called “out-door relief.” Much of this latter expenditure is, judging from the report of the Commissioners of Public Charities, sheer waste.
These sixty-one alms-houses of the state shelter 8,630 inmates, of whom 2,328 are women, and 1,024 children. In the year 1883, 1,739 inmates of the alms-houses were reported insane. By act of the last legislature children over two years of age are excluded from the county alms-houses, and insane persons are ordered to be removed to the state hospitals. Unfortunately, the legislature neglected to appropriate the money necessary to carrying out this reform, and as a consequence, there has been serious trouble, and probably not a little suffering throughout the state. It would not do to speak of all these sixty-one alms-houses as merciful institutions. Some of them are branded by the Commissioners of Public Charities as abodes of cruelty; others, as breeding places of vice and immorality; others still as utterly inadequate, both in building and management, to the purposes of their existence. Among those thus branded are the alms-houses of two of the richest counties of the state—Chester and Cumberland. On the other hand, many of these institutions are worthy of all praise, the taxpayers having spared no expense in the erection and equipment of the buildings, and the management being intrusted to conscientious men and women.
In addition to this provision which the state has made for the poor within its limits, there are numerous private institutions for the care and comfort of the adult poor. There is, for instance, in Reading, a “Home for Aged Widows and Single Women,” which, at present, contains eleven inmates, its full capacity. Many more seek the benefits of this institution than can be accommodated in the two story brick dwelling which has been built expressly for its purposes. In Philadelphia there is a “Home for Aged Couples,” containing twelve inmates; an “Old Man’s Home” in West Philadelphia, containing 65 inmates; the “Penn Asylum for Indigent Widows and Single Women;” the “Maypother Home for Women;” a “Home for Infirm Colored Men and Women;” and the “Edwin Forrest Home for Aged and Infirm Actors.” These are undenominational. They are supported, partly by admission fees, which are required of those receiving the benefits of the various homes; partly by the property conveyed to the homes by the inmates, but chiefly by contributions and bequests of benevolent individuals.
The Roman Catholic Church supports, through the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, “Saint Ann’s Widow’s Asylum,” to which widows over fifty years of age are admitted; they also have a “Home for the Aged Poor,” under the care of the Little Sisters of the Poor, which has at present some three hundred inmates. Christ Church, Philadelphia, has a “Home for Aged Women,” as have also Saint Luke’s Church, in Philadelphia, and Saint Luke’s Church, Germantown. There is also in Philadelphia, a “Home for Aged and Infirm Methodists,” with accommodations for one hundred men and women.
Under the Constitution of 1873, the legislature is forbidden to appropriate any monies to denominational or sectarian institutions, no matter how large their scope, or how unsectarian may be their benevolence. But there is nothing to forbid generous appropriations to such homes for the aged and infirm as are not under denominational control; yet the managers of such institutions should bear in mind that in order to secure any help from the state, they should make report of their workings to the State Board of Public Charities. Next to the institutions for the adult poor, it will be best to consider the large provision which has been made both by the state and by private individuals for the care of children; especially for the care of orphans. First of all stands that magnificent network of charities which covers the entire state—