In order to rebuild their homes, 352, or 72 per cent, of the applicants negotiated loans with banks or with relatives or friends. The interest was from 61⁄2 to 8 per cent. Previous to April 18, 1906, 61 of those who later received the bonus had rented their houses and occupied living quarters elsewhere,—in four instances, in cottages on lots on which the houses stood; in others, with relatives, in rented rooms in more desirable residence sections, or in houses owned in other parts of the city. After the fire the number who rented their homes to others increased to 74; 22 of this number, in place of four, lived on their own lots in small cottages or shacks built in the rear of each lot.
Four hundred and fifty, or 92 per cent, of those who received the $500 bonus had carried, and received after the fire, insurance in amounts ranging from less than $500 to $20,000. Of 204 families from whom reliable data were secured, 25 were found to have received full payment; 78 to have received more than 75 per cent, but less than 100 per cent of their loss; 82, more than 50 per cent but less than 75 per cent; and 12, more than 25 per cent but less than 50 per cent. One received less than 25 per cent and six received nothing.
The field workers found it peculiarly difficult to learn what had been the amount of bank savings of the different families. Many refused to answer the question; others denied that they had had savings; 167, or 34 per cent, of those tabulated admitted having put aside amounts varying from less than $500 to more than $4,000; and 38 that they had savings, the amounts of which they would not give.
Though all aided under the bonus plan were property owners,[201] a number were in debt both before and after the fire. [Table 79] indicates the number in debt and the amount of this indebtedness.
[201] The five who did not own lots on which they wished to build had presumably other property.
TABLE 79.—INDEBTEDNESS CARRIED BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN[202]
| Amount of indebtedness | FAMILIES WHOSE INDEBTEDNESS WAS AS SPECIFIED | |
|---|---|---|
| Before fire | After fire | |
| Less than $500 | 21 | 38 |
| $500 and less than $1,000 | 49 | 66 |
| $1,000 and less than $2,000 | 61 | 83 |
| $2,000 and less than $3,000 | 32 | 65 |
| $3,000 and over | 13 | 72 |
| Total | 176 | 324 |
[202] Of the families investigated, three that carried indebtedness before the fire and four that carried indebtedness after the fire refused to state the amount of the indebtedness.
From the table it will be noted that before the fire 179, or 37 per cent, of those aided, had carried a burden of debt, while afterwards the number was increased to 328, or 67 per cent. Loans to the amount of the indebtedness noted could have been obtained upon the property owned.
Additional aid was granted by the Rehabilitation Committee to 116, or 24 per cent, of the bonus grantees, in amounts varying from $5.00 to $500. These grants were in the main for clothing, sewing machines, medicine, or other general household relief. The aid included 59 furniture grants. In 10 of the 116 cases the full bonus was not given, so that the sum of grants amounted to not more than $500. Sixty-five of the applicants were not eligible for the full bonus, as the buildings they erected were worth less than $1,500 each. The department, it may be remembered, had agreed to pay not more than one-third of the value of the house which should be erected.[203]